PDA

View Full Version : Will all people of the world mix creating one race in the future?



Pages : [1] 2 3

LeBrok
22-01-13, 21:25
More and more people can travel freely around the world, also emigrating and immigrating on large scale. Old customs and arranged marriages coming to past, and freedom of personal choices is embraced. Racism and segregation is abolished and interracial mixing become socially acceptable.

Maybe the question should be if, but only when whole world becomes well mixed in single race?

Please post pictures of how you think well mixed individual of the world will look like.

Kardu
22-01-13, 22:14
Sure, but no matter if we like it or not, the process exists and is accelerating. We can scream, we can kick, but it will happen.
You can't stop natural forces and processes, unless you are a dictator arranging all marriages to your liking ( only postponing inevitable).
The world used to be big and distances huge, now world is a village and you can get everywhere in 24 hours to talk to anyone you want.

Current period is like a minute on the line of history :) We don't know how things will unfold. One way or another group mentality and behaviour is part of human nature, unless you dramatically change it (Transhumanism?) a melting pot on a global scale won't happen...

LeBrok
22-01-13, 22:39
Originally Posted by Kardu http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=402961#post402961)
Mixing is a fact of historical process (in the past peaceful mixing was rare btw) and by itself neutral, seeing it as nice or not is a matter of taste.


Sure, but no matter if we like it or not, the process exists and is accelerating. We can scream, we can kick, but it will happen.
You can't stop natural forces and processes, unless you are a dictator arranging all marriages to your liking ( only postponing inevitable).
The world used to be big and distances huge, now world is a village and you can get everywhere in 24 hours to talk to anyone you want.

LeBrok
22-01-13, 23:00
Current period is like a minute on the line of history :) We don't know how things will unfold. One way or another group mentality and behaviour is part of human nature, unless you dramatically change it (Transhumanism?) a melting pot on a global scale won't happen...

But it already happened few times.
First time when Homo Sapience left Africa and mixed with all the Homo Erectus species that hey physically could. It took good 50 thousand years but it happened.
By spread of paternal lines we can deduce that many isolated populations, of ancient times, moved to different areas and mixed with locals. It's enough to look at maternal and paternal lines of Europe to see the aftermath of melting pot of the past.
I don't see how this won't happen again, given all the reasons from my post #3, above.

There are places where this mixing is already happening on larg scale. Giving good visualization how the world will look in a hundred or two years. Look at USA, Canada, Australia, Singapore, or Brazil. They are huge melting pots now, but give it few hundred years and you'll sea one mixed type (race) emerging.
I think in Brazil you can already see some well mixed individuals, made of white, black and local native ("Indian") walking the streets.

kamani
22-01-13, 23:04
More and more people can travel freely around the world, also emigrating and immigrating on large scale. Old customs and arranged marriages coming to past, and freedom of personal choices is embraced. Racism and segregation is abolished and interracial mixing become socially acceptable.

Maybe the question should be if, but only when whole world becomes well mixed in single race?

A single race is impossible. Even if somehow miraculously everybody mixed today, fairly quickly evolution will create again races between climate zones. This question is like asking: "are we ever going to have only 1 kind of monkey on earth?"

Kardu
22-01-13, 23:12
But it already happened few times.
First time when Homo Sapience left Africa and mixed with all the Homo Erectus species that hey physically could. It took good 50 thousand years but it happened.
By spread of paternal lines we can deduce that many isolated populations, of ancient times, moved to different areas and mixed with locals. It's enough to look at maternal and paternal lines of Europe to see the aftermath of melting pot of the past.
I don't see how this won't happen again, given all the reasons from my post #3, above.

There are places where this mixing is already happening on larg scale. Giving good visualization how the world will look in a hundred or two years. Look at USA, Canada, Australia, Singapore, or Brazil. They are huge melting pots now, but give it few hundred years and you'll sea one mixed type (race) emerging.
I think in Brazil you can already see some well mixed individuals, made of white, black and local native ("Indian") walking the streets.

Too idealistic picture... And Brasil..: gated communities with rich white minority....

And in the Western world it happens because of directed propaganda and education. I don't see similar processes in Japan, Korea etc...

LeBrok
22-01-13, 23:15
A single race is impossible. Even if somehow miraculously everybody mixed today, fairly quickly evolution will create again races between climate zones. This question is like asking: "are we ever going to have only 1 kind of monkey on earth?"
Ah, but thanks to recent advances in medicine and technology we can avoid old trappings of climatic zones. White people can use sun-screen in Africa and anti-malaria medicine, and Africans can supplement lack of vitamin D with pills when in cooler latitudes, and can buy thicker clothes not to freeze. We can buy right clothes hours after arrival to different zones,and use heating or cooling systems in buildings. And this is just a beginning of our technological and medical innovations.

kamani
23-01-13, 00:38
Ah, but thanks to recent advances in medicine and technology we can avoid old trappings of climatic zones. White people can use sun-screen in Africa and anti-malaria medicine, and Africans can supplement lack of vitamin D with pills when in cooler latitudes, and can buy thicker clothes not to freeze. We can buy right clothes hours after arrival to different zones,and use heating or cooling systems in buildings. And this is just a beginning of our technological and medical innovations.
Those things are far from stopping evolution, which works in mysterious ways. This brings to mind the story of the Tower of Babel, people thought they could build a tower and shoot an arrow to god.

nordicwarrior
23-01-13, 02:17
Nice point Kamani, sometimes I ponder at how hyper-connected we are all and realize we're just one giant coronal ejection away from living in the dark ages again. Our financial, agricultural, and energy systems have gotten so complex, I'm a bit surprised we've made it this far. And I wouldn't consider the U.S. a melting pot... more of a salad bowl. Mixing isn't as common in the U.S. as some might think.

nordicwarrior
23-01-13, 02:28
But back to the original question... my vote for what the human race looks like after "complete mixing" would be an actress from Canada--Rae Dawn Chong. She has Chinese, Scot-Irish, French, African, and American Indian (Cherokee) heritage. If you have an interest in ancient DNA, please watch her film "Quest for Fire".

nordicwarrior
23-01-13, 04:11
I like your photo!!

We can't leave Tiger Woods off of the list... he's a mix of African-American, Native American, Thai, Chinese, and Dutch.

frankmiller11
22-07-13, 11:53
there is a possibility , but it will take years for that to happen,
may be another century or two

Ike
22-07-13, 14:17
Mixing is possible only while we have vehicles and airplanes to travel so far in one day. I wonder what will happen when we run out of oil?

LeBrok
22-07-13, 17:08
Mixing is possible only while we have vehicles and airplanes to travel so far in one day. I wonder what will happen when we run out of oil?
Did you hear about biofuel, solar panels, batteries and nuclear fusion and fission? Till our Sun dies we never going to run out of energy.

ebAmerican
22-07-13, 17:36
People are mixing race and species as if they are compatible. Were are a very homogenized single species. Race is subjective. I think the question has to be a lot more specific, like can we breed out different skin color, or different hair color, et. If you say race, then no. We like to categorize people. We would have a new race of tall and short, or fast and slow. Plus, isolation and close breeding patterns produce interesting physical traits. Unless we invent instantaneous transportation devices, and outlaw communities like the Amish, it will be impossible to maintain the global melting pot.

Rudy228
23-07-13, 05:55
Perhaps it is time to admit, or consider that we have always been one race with various groups physically impacted by their environment. One race made up of different haplogroups. Science will make 'race' a thing of the past.

Fire Haired
23-07-13, 06:27
i doubt that will happen look at america how many different ethnic groups we have whites almost always have kids with whites same with all other races. there is nothing wrong with that but in the future i doubt wars will cause people to inter marry more. Rome had a huge empire all over Europe and areas of north Africa and the mid east all of those people where Romans technically. but they almost ever mixed there is not alot of DNA evidence of it. Rome was Roman and still is people in Italy and Rome genetically have not really changed that much since the Roman empire. It does seem they did inter marry with Greeks and mid easterns alot before the Roman empire.

LeBrok
23-07-13, 07:04
i doubt that will happen look at america how many different ethnic groups we have whites almost always have kids with whites same with all other races. there is nothing wrong with that but in the future i doubt wars will cause people to inter marry more. Rome had a huge empire all over Europe and areas of north Africa and the mid east all of those people where Romans technically. but they almost ever mixed there is not alot of DNA evidence of it. Rome was Roman and still is people in Italy and Rome genetically have not really changed that much since the Roman empire. It does seem they did inter marry with Greeks and mid easterns alot before the Roman empire.
100 years ago you had huge divide between ethnic groups in US. English, German, Irish, Italians, etc. Now they've blend in pretty much into one white America.
Isn't it true that 25% black American men have European Y DNA?
Pay attention that mixing process is only speeding up.

Fire Haired
23-07-13, 10:19
100 years ago you had huge divide between ethnic groups in US. English, German, Irish, Italians, etc. Now they've blend in pretty much into one white America.
Isn't it true that 25% black American men have European Y DNA?
Pay attention that mixing process is only speeding up.

well sure white people from differnt nations marry each other that is not that big of a deal genetically germans and polish like 10,000ybp or more years ago are mainly descended of the same people they both look exactly the same. u are saying like different races constantly mixing.

also the 25% european y dna in blacks came in slavery age. slave owners raped women slaves same reason why 20% of black aust dna(in globe13 test) is of European origin. also their european aust DNA ratio perfectly matches British men they did not inter marry with Italians or Polish in recent times. the mixing is not already happening.

LeBrok
23-07-13, 17:07
well sure white people from differnt nations marry each other that is not that big of a deal genetically germans and polish like 10,000ybp or more years ago are mainly descended of the same people they both look exactly the same. u are saying like different races constantly mixing.
.
Granted it was a lesser messalians than interracial marriage, but still people broke their strong cultural divides and hatred and British married Irish or German Polish.
In todays more tolerant society racial borders are being open. It is just a mater of time for all to mix. Give it a thousand of years.

Kardu
23-07-13, 18:41
Granted it was a lesser messalians than interracial marriage, but still people broke their strong cultural divides and hatred and British married Irish or German Polish.
In todays more tolerant society racial borders are being open. It is just a mater of time for all to mix. Give it a thousand of years.
LeBrok you call yourself a citizen of the world, so your stance on this topic is understandable, but I doubt that reality corresponds to your idealized vision.

LeBrok
23-07-13, 20:39
LeBrok you call yourself a citizen of the world, so your stance on this topic is understandable, but I doubt that reality corresponds to your idealized vision.
I don't have any visions of my perfect society, as long as it is tolerant, free, inclusive and well off.
I'm merely pointing the natural trends unleashed by technology and economy, known as globalization.

Wilhelm
23-07-13, 20:40
I hope not. If there are different races/ethnicities in the world is for a reason, nature is wise as they say...

Fire Haired
23-07-13, 20:56
Granted it was a lesser messalians than interracial marriage, but still people broke their strong cultural divides and hatred and British married Irish or German Polish.
In todays more tolerant society racial borders are being open. It is just a mater of time for all to mix. Give it a thousand of years.

white Americans even in the 1700's where not a culturally divided as u say. 2nd generation Germans spoke English they looked no diff from the english or irish they lived together. most of my ancestry has been here since the 1600's and early 1700's we have records in my family of english marrying German, German marrying scotch Irish, and scotch Irish marry first generation Scottish. They where inter marrying even in the 1600's and 1700's there was not that much of a cultural divide once they learned english and grew up in america.

the biggest divide with white Americans was catholic or protestant but they still inter married it was not that big of a divide. ur overrating it. with white Americans and black Americans or Hispanics there is a obvious phiscal difference and more of a culturally difference that is why they rarely inter marry. Also i think white people just naturally aren't as attracted to black people. in my opinon it is pretty obivous diff races are more attracted to each other.

Hispanics though are not exactly a race they are a mix of native american and Spanish.

Kardu
23-07-13, 23:09
I don't have any visions of my perfect society, as long as it is tolerant, free, inclusive and well off.
I'm merely pointing the natural trends unleashed by technology and economy, known as globalization.

'Natural trends unleashed by technology and economy' don't stop Japan or South Korea from having ethnically homogenous nations.

As for me as a Georgian, if we were to lose our ethno-cultural identity I would not give a damn about how tolerant, free, inclusive and well-off the society in general there will be...

Wilhelm
23-07-13, 23:38
I don't have any visions of my perfect society, as long as it is tolerant, free, inclusive and well off.
I'm merely pointing the natural trends unleashed by technology and economy, known as globalization.
There is no such thing as a "trend", it's something planned and deliberate.

LeBrok
24-07-13, 02:48
white Americans even in the 1700's where not a culturally divided as u say. 2nd generation Germans spoke English they looked no diff from the english or irish they lived together. most of my ancestry has been here since the 1600's and early 1700's we have records in my family of english marrying German, German marrying scotch Irish, and scotch Irish marry first generation Scottish. They where inter marrying even in the 1600's and 1700's there was not that much of a cultural divide once they learned english and grew up in america.

the biggest divide with white Americans was catholic or protestant but they still inter married it was not that big of a divide. ur overrating it. with white Americans and black Americans or Hispanics there is a obvious phiscal difference and more of a culturally difference that is why they rarely inter marry. Also i think white people just naturally aren't as attracted to black people. in my opinon it is pretty obivous diff races are more attracted to each other.
It is true that most people will stay with their group. But even if this process is slow it is ongoing and speeding up with today's "shrinking" world. That's why my conclusion is that eventually world will mix up. I don't care much for it, but I can see the process and its consequences.


Hispanics though are not exactly a race they are a mix of native american and Spanish. Look at this, they've mixed already. Are you trying to help my point? :)

LeBrok
24-07-13, 02:56
'Natural trends unleashed by technology and economy' don't stop Japan or South Korea from having ethnically homogenous nations.


Obviously there are some very "conservative" nations, but it would be naive to assume they are immune from mixing. Yoko Ono married John Lenon, and I just met Japanese plumber who married white girl, and what about Tiger Woods?
Just because you don't like it, it doesn't stop the world from doing whatever it wants. If you want to stay blind, stay blind.


As for me as a Georgian, if we were to lose our ethno-cultural identity I would not give a damn about how tolerant, free, inclusive and well-off the society in general there will be...
With all due respect, what so special about Georgians? If Georgia vanished from this planet today 7 billion people wouldn't notice any difference.

LeBrok
24-07-13, 03:02
There is no such thing as a "trend", it's something planned and deliberate.
That's for sure, we are all here to get you...

Fire Haired
24-07-13, 07:30
It is true that most people will stay with their group. But even if this process is slow it is ongoing and speeding up with today's "shrinking" world. That's why my conclusion is that eventually world will mix up. I don't care much for it, but I can see the process and its consequences.

i dont think it is speeding up sure now there are cross racial marriages because it is more accepted. but it is still very rare i doubt it will speed up in the future. i think u have good points but i still think people are not going to mix alot in the future it depends what happens in the future. The western world will eventullay fall possibly conquered by Communist or the Muslim world if that happens mixing will be more possible because we will loose our ethnic identities and be pilled up together.

i dont want to sound raciest but i think white people mainly white men just are less attracted to black people. I think diff races are more attracted to each other.


Look at this, they've mixed already. Are you trying to help my point? :)

well that is very true but u have too look at the history. Spain conquered all of Latin america well i guess Portugal conquered some areas maybe a few other european countries did to. Spanish soldiers i remember learning in history class had no Spanish women so they had kids with native americans some times by force. I think most Spanish that came where only men so they had to inter marry. I guess it is more complicated than that though.

Fire Haired
24-07-13, 07:40
Obviously there are some very "conservative" nations, but it would be naive to assume they are immune from mixing. Yoko Ono married John Lenon, and I just met Japanese plumber who married white girl, and what about Tiger Woods?
Just because you don't like it, it doesn't stop the world from doing whatever it wants. If you want to stay blind, stay blind.

the fact is that even in america diff races mix very rarelly and it is not going to grow. When did he ever say he did not like hey if u want everyone to do what they want can i kill the next guy that walks on my sidewalk.

we have gone over this there will always be rules tolerant does not mean let people do whatever they want ur idea of tolerant seems pretty untolernt to me u dont allow people to have national pride like Georgians because it does not really efect anyone else well it effects Georgians. plus u only allow people to have one OPINON and allow what u think they should allow and not allow what u dont think they should allow. ur idea of tolerance might not be tolerant enough for some people and tolerant of things other people thing should not be tolerated.

U cant tolerate everything



With all due respect, what so special about Georgians? If Georgia vanished from this planet today 7 billion people wouldn't notice any difference.

Georgians are special to Georgians that matters. If u destroy their identity with ur so called tolerant society that is not being un tolerant. U only see ur opinion as tolerant other see it as not tolerant enough or to tolerant to bad things. All we are arguing is what should be allowed and what should not be allowed and we have different opinions neither of us tolerate better.

Fire Haired
24-07-13, 07:49
More and more people can travel freely around the world, also emigrating and immigrating on large scale. Old customs and arranged marriages coming to past, and freedom of personal choices is embraced. Racism and segregation is abolished and interracial mixing become socially acceptable.

why cant u have old customs and freedom of religion, speech etc. why do u want to create this globealization where all traditions are destroyed that sounds alot like communism. arranged marriages in the western world where destroyed very long ago because of Christianity. U have to have limits on freedom of persnol choices u cant allow people to rape animals or kill each other for no reason. Even in ur tolerant society there are rules.

Inter mixing between races is very rare in america. U think ur opinion on society is so great destroy all past evils everyone is free. u keep forgetting u have rules too there has to be regulations and some peoples regulations are diffenrt from ur's there is nothing wrong with that. U probably think i was not tolernt if i though it was wrong to have people of the same gender having sexual relation ships in my opinion that is wrong and is one of those limits. i mean i guess it could be allowed but i would still dis agree with it. u would call me un tolerant i am not i just have a diff opinion on what the limit is. u would not agree with 30 year olds having a sexual relationship with a 10 year old or an animals even though they might say they love each other or the animals. u think that is wrong someone else could call u un tolernt too.

u get what i am saying i am not un tolerant and hateful towards different people just i have limits on diff moral laws that u dont have maybe u have stricter limits other people don't have. Also in ur idea of society it seems u want all old customs gone that is pretty un tolerant. ur idea of a good scoiety reminds me of Communism.

Maybe the question should be if, but only when whole world becomes well mixed in single race?

Please post pictures of how you think well mixed individual of the world will look like.[/QUOTE]

Kardu
24-07-13, 09:58
Obviously there are some very "conservative" nations, but it would be naive to assume they are immune from mixing. Yoko Ono married John Lenon, and I just met Japanese plumber who married white girl, and what about Tiger Woods?
Just because you don't like it, it doesn't stop the world from doing whatever it wants. If you want to stay blind, stay blind.


With all due respect, what so special about Georgians? If Georgia vanished from this planet today 7 billion people wouldn't notice any difference.

I don't think I am the blind here ;)

It holds for individuals as well. If one dies right now '7 billion people wouldn't notice any difference', so are you going to commit a suicide?

Globalization is not a natural event as you want to portrait it. There are some interest groups who brought it in motion and there are interest groups which are against it. The outcome depends which of those will have stronger will and who will be more resourceful.

Wilhelm
24-07-13, 16:14
That's for sure, we are all here to get you...
You don't get it...globalization is something planned by a few big corporations, the so called Oligarchy. There is no such "natural trends" that you are talking about.

Nobody1
24-07-13, 17:11
I hope not;

hope
24-07-13, 17:14
why cant u have old customs
Such as sacrificing a human, so to ensure you get good harvest or keep the demons from your community, perhaps? Or burn any-one who helps with a natural potion or has a dislike for the community faith? Surely you don`t mean these good old customs and such like, do you.


and freedom of religion
I think one of the main reason many went to America, apart from trying to work towards better life, was because of religious persecution, so it is incorrect to say freedom of religion always applied, or yet does in all places even to-day.


U have to have limits on freedom of persnol choices u cant allow people to rape animals or kill each other for no reason. Even in ur tolerant society there are rules.
I read the post you are quoting, I do not see any-one advocating the murder of another or indeed the rape of animals. You really should reply to that which is written and not that which you "think" is written.


Inter mixing between races is very rare in america.
No, it is not "very" rare. Inter-racial marriage figures [ and we are not even calculating for those who live together and were not counted] are, in both Canada and U.S.A. at a new time high. I think one in twelve for America.


U think ur opinion on society is so great destroy all past evils everyone is free.
I could sign up for that. Perhaps you yourself would prefer to live under dictatorship or have no freedom of expression?


u keep forgetting u have rules too there has to be regulations and some peoples regulations are diffenrt from ur's there is nothing wrong with that.
Keep in mind this can apply to personal choice also and all sections must have protection under laws.


u would not agree with 30 year olds having a sexual relationship with a 10 year old or an animals
No, because that would be molestation of a child. Much different topic indeed.
No, because animals cannot give verbal consent.

LeBrok
25-07-13, 04:43
Such as sacrificing a human, so to ensure you get good harvest or keep the demons from your community, perhaps? Or burn any-one who helps with a natural potion or has a dislike for the community faith? Surely you don`t mean these good old customs and such like, do you.


I think one of the main reason many went to America, apart from trying to work towards better life, was because of religious persecution, so it is incorrect to say freedom of religion always applied, or yet does in all places even to-day.


Isn't he the one proclaiming that all muslims are enemies number one?! Now he is for freedom of religion, lol, I guess only his religion.

He doesn't realise that Freedom of Religion Acts in western world were formulated to stop inter-religion fighting, to stop hegemony of one major religion persecuting others. That's what happened in Poland, England and US to stop wars between faiths. There was not even one instance that Freedom of Religion was declared against Atheists attacking Religious people.
Ironically for him, freedom of religion was proclaimed against intolerant religious zealots like him.

Fire Haired
25-07-13, 07:31
Such as sacrificing a human, so to ensure you get good harvest or keep the demons from your community, perhaps? Or burn any-one who helps with a natural potion or has a dislike for the community faith? Surely you don`t mean these good old customs and such like, do you.

when did i ever say that.



I think one of the main reason many went to America, apart from trying to work towards better life, was because of religious persecution, so it is incorrect to say freedom of religion always applied, or yet does in all places even to-day.

they ran away from religious persecution for religious freedom.



I read the post you are quoting, I do not see any-one advocating the murder of another or indeed the rape of animals. You really should reply to that which is written and not that which you "think" is written.

I never said any one wrote that i was giving an example. U gues think ur the best version of tolernce when u just have ur own opinon on what is tolernt and what is not.



No, it is not "very" rare. Inter-racial marriage figures [ and we are not even calculating for those who live together and were not counted] are, in both Canada and U.S.A. at a new time high. I think one in twelve for America.

that is 0.83% that is very rare and from what i have witnessed living in one of the most diverse areas in america and the world it is very rare. i live in america u live in ireland i have a better idea of what racial relations are.



I could sign up for that. Perhaps you yourself would prefer to live under dictatorship or have no freedom of expression?

what does this have to do with what i said. well in ur guys society's everyone has to have a left winged opinon because u think all others are close minded and hatful.


Keep in mind this can apply to personal choice also and all sections must have protection under laws.



No, because that would be molestation of a child. Much different topic indeed.
No, because animals cannot give verbal consent.
well; that is what people 50 years ago said about gay marriage now u guys have made it a moral crusade. u cant just put animals off the subject many people have the same opinion on gay marriage and 10 years old can give verbal consent.

Fire Haired
25-07-13, 07:40
Isn't he the one proclaiming that all muslims are enemies number one?! Now he is for freedom of religion, lol, I guess only his religion.
once agian ur sterotyping me i mean the Muslim countures who want to destroy the western world and the terroist are a huge threat number one or two under north korea and all communist nations.

i have had Muslim friends since i was a kid i ahve always had Muslim neighbors stereotype me has who u want me to be when maybe ur the hateful one.


He doesn't realise that Freedom of Religion Acts in western world were formulated to stop inter-religion fighting, to stop hegemony of one major religion persecuting others. That's what happened in Poland, England and US to stop wars between faiths. There was not even one instance that Freedom of Religion was declared against Atheists attacking Religious people.
Ironically for him, freedom of religion was proclaimed against intolerant religious zealots like him.

I believe in freedom of religion i wont deny the Muslim world is a huge threat. I think in ur society u don't believe in good morals or for people to think differently than u. Can u stop stero typing me and my people to who u want us to be hateful and prejudice. so far u are the hatful prejudice one going of the same arguments if the 1960's that age is over. The liberal media will be stopped and our country will wake up and i know when i say that u think i mean in a bad way. ur generation 1960-1980's in my opinon went way way to far and to against the past and traditions and are to hateful against religion.

frankmiller11
25-07-13, 09:34
is there a possibility of a new species , that has green skin color, i love green man

Maciamo
25-07-13, 10:04
I am joining this thread late.

I don't think that the world will ever be one ethnicity. Actually ethnicities tend to disappear and multiply with mixing. The term 'ethnicity' was useful to refer to a group of people sharing a common homeland and ancestry, in which the gene pool had been sufficiently uniformised over the centuries.

The current trend is for people to intermarry and give birth to children with multiple ancestry, although there are so many possible combinations that new ethnicities aren't formed, or only very small ones in number of individuals. In other words the total number of ethnicities could be seen either to disappear (in the traditional sense) as they are replaced by hybrids, or to increase, if each new type of hybrid is considered a new ethnicity of its own.

Furthermore, the world population has soared to billions of individuals, each born with new unique mutation every generation. The total genetic diversity has never increased so fast. The level of heterogeneity therefore escalates. That is why, unless the world population and international migrations both decreases significantly the world will become a mosaic of tiny ethnic groups, essentially close family members. I am just afraid that this leads to the amoral familism of southern Italy described by Edward Banfield (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28912-Fall-of-the-Western-Roman-Empire?p=412653&viewfull=1#post412653).

Fire Haired
25-07-13, 10:38
i love green man

then go to mars
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/alperium/alperium0811/alperium081101058/3855492-green-alien-portrait-isolated-on-white.jpg

hope
25-07-13, 15:35
when did i ever say that. .
When you said this;

why cant u have old customs.
Now, as you did not specify which "old customs", I asked if perhaps you meant the type such as I listed. This was not a difficult question.


they ran away from religious persecution for religious freedom..
Yes, this is what I said. Why do you feel the need to return to me the point I myself originally made?


U gues think ur the best version of tolernce when u just have ur own opinon on what is tolernt and what is not..
My idea of tolerance is as follows. I believe each individual should have the ability to make their own personal choices in life, without fear of being abused or harassed for doing so. I believe there should be good laws to cover and serve all sections of our community, regardless of sex, colour or religious preference. I believe it is not for any one section of our community to abuse by word or force, another section of our community because it wishes to live in a way that is different.And when I say "community" I refer to society in general. Now, I`m pretty sure I have heard such ideas on "tolerance" of this nature expressed by some long before me. Tell me, do you think my idea on tolerance is badly formed?




from what i have witnessed living in one of the most diverse areas in america and the world it is very rare. i live in america u live in ireland i have a better idea of what racial relations are .
Studies show inter-racial marriages have risen in the U.S.A. Approximately 4.6 million. In your own area of California it is said more than 1 in 5 marriages are of this type and the trend seems to be rising. Now I am aware America has a very large population and 4.6 million is not a grand number, however I do not think it shows as you say..inter-race marriages are VERY rare.
Yes, I live in Ireland. And of course here we have absolutely no history of incomers whatsoever lol.
However, can I say that whilst we may not be so large a country as some, we do have various communities, such as Chinese, Indian, African etc etc. Perhaps you thought here, we are all milk coloured and have red hair and dress in little green suits. Tell me, do you think we all keep leprechauns in our kitchens too?


left winged opinon because u think all others are close minded
Do not attempt to call my political leaning, you do not know it. I did not say you were closed minded. However if a person will not see any opinion other than his own, will not give even, there may be another opinion, other than his own..some may say, that is somewhat closed-minded.


well; that is what people 50 years ago said about gay marriage now u guys have made it a moral crusade.
Have I made "gay marriage" my moral crusade? I think my crusade stretches further than you allow for in that statement.


10 years old can give verbal consent.
Seriously..No. Not in law. And that is the simple answer as to go into further would need fuller discussion, which I am not inclined to do in this thread at this time.

Fire Haired
26-07-13, 05:17
. .
When you said this;
.
Now, as you did not specify which "old customs", I asked if perhaps you meant the type such as I listed. This was not a difficult question.

not all old customs are bad u assumed this when i said old customs.

.


My idea of tolerance is as follows. I believe each individual should have the ability to make their own personal choices in life, without fear of being abused or harassed for doing so.

i totally agree but we have to have limit we cant allow people to do what this website does not allow. extremely threatening or sexual harssemnt or devil worship that type of stuff some people might have differnt limits. Also about the harrasment part i am sure even Ireland heard about The chick fella owner who was harrased and called evil by american media because he dis agreed with gay marriage. Also chicago mayor wanted to shut down all plans for new chick fella business. When ever someone powerful is agianst gay marraige he is shot down for it by libearls and that is not tolerance which they say they have. I dont ignore conservative un tolernce but there is no way libearls are free of un tolernce it is in human nature.

i am not accusing u of this but american and european media and education systems have alot of un tolerant liberals. My father while getting a Phd during that time given bad grades just because he had a diff opinion about philopshy. Later the teacher changed his mine but from my experience left winged people today hold the power and are un tolerant. My entire life i have seen un tolerance by left winged people that is the reason i got into politics. Our media is un tolerant and very liberal the american and i am sure european power people are left winged.


I believe there should be good laws to cover and serve all sections of our community, regardless of sex, colour or religious preference. I believe it is not for any one section of our community to abuse by word or force, another section of our community because it wishes to live in a way that is different.And when I say "community" I refer to society in general. Now, I`m pretty sure I have heard such ideas on "tolerance" of this nature expressed by some long before me. Tell me, do you think my idea on tolerance is badly formed?

I totally agree with u but still want to make the point everyone things their the good guy and the tolerant one and everyone has diff opinions on what is tolerant and what is not. I totally agree with equal rights but there are diff gender roles but our nature will probably play it out we dont need to intentionally put women in men's roles which i see alot. Also we should not try to stop diff groups from forming. Georgians can be Georgians and not old tradtions are bad. I have seen that libearl thinking has lead to very un moral tv shows and movies and people call people who say showing sex 24/7 is unmoral as un tolerant. When that society is better left winged thinking sometimes goes to far and to un moral i dont know what u think about that. I think if both of us and people around the world take away what we think each other think we will realize we basically have the same idea about morals and what should be tolernt and that we are all making some mistakes.





.

Studies show inter-racial marriages have risen in the U.S.A. Approximately 4.6 million. In your own area of California it is said more than 1 in 5 marriages are of this type and the trend seems to be rising. Now I am aware America has a very large population and 4.6 million is not a grand number, however I do not think it shows as you say..inter-race marriages are VERY rare.

Here is kind off a background of America we where first a English colonie we also had alot of Scotch Irish and German i guess some jews and Polish. Pretty much america was a white country. White americans got the idea that non whites where stupid and inferior from Europe because that is where they came from and the idea whites are smart and civlizaed came in the 1400's when Europeans became like 50 times more advanced than the rest of the world and made colonies. And europeans saw them selves as decendants of ancient Rome and Greece even though almost all of europe descended genetically not cultrally from the people Rome and Greece saw as sabotage primitive people they ofentlly compared native Americans to ancient Celts not realized those where their ancestors maybe they kind of did.

It was very hard for white Americans to accept blacks and other non whites. eventulley we did we saw they where human too. it was not until the 1980's when whites and blacks accepted inter racial marriage and it slowly became more accepted. it is still very rare. Like i said i live in the most or second most diverse area of america and the world and inter racial marriage is very rare. sue it is more popular than it was in 1980 but i doubt it will rise in the future.


Yes, I live in Ireland. And of course here we have absolutely no history of incomers whatsoever lol.
However, can I say that whilst we may not be so large a country as some, we do have various communities, such as Chinese, Indian, African etc etc. Perhaps you thought here, we are all milk coloured and have red hair and dress in little green suits. Tell me, do you think we all keep leprechauns in our kitchens too?

i see u come from northern Ireland i have ancestry that goes back there and that is where my surname comes from. The Scotch Irish are the original hillbillies they came from northern Ireland. I cant go in debt but american folk stories and the american identity in many ways comes from ulster Irish aka scotch Irish they are very important in american history. Still today the Appalachian mountains is 100% ulter Irish and the traditional south has alot of Scotch Irish blood. here is a link are some links gives some history of the scotch Irish and their huge influence of american culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_American
saying the Sctoch Irish where born fighting because of their fighting attitude and history in american military and their Scottish ancestry.
http://www.amazon.com/Born-Fighting-Scots-Irish-Shaped-America/dp/0767916891

i am just saying ur not from america ur from Europe which is like the white continent and i come from the most or second most diverse city in america. So i thought i would have a better idea what inter racial marriage in america is.





Do not attempt to call my political leaning, you do not know it. I did not say you were closed minded. However if a person will not see any opinion other than his own, will not give even, there may be another opinion, other than his own..some may say, that is somewhat closed-minded.

Alot of left winged thinking stems out of the idea right wings are close minded and raciest. Uselly dont understand how more right winged people think i guess dont really understand more left winged people.



Have I made "gay marriage" my moral crusade? I think my crusade stretches further than you allow for in that statement.

No i guess not but many people do and they twist some things about homosexuality like lebrok did. They say humans have no sexual choose they only choose the gender they where made for and they make stuff up about human psychology to fit their idea on homosexuality. I have seen it alot not from u i guess but lebrok, my teachers in school, others i have talked with. Also u take the more perverted history of homosexuality out of the picture and that it has always been seen as diff from hetrosexuality in its nature. People make it seem like a moral crusade and where the bad guys when really we have diff opinions when i am not trying to harm anyone.

i am not accusing u of all these things i am accusing many other people i have heard.



Seriously..No. Not in law. And that is the simple answer as to go into further would need fuller discussion, which I am not inclined to do in this thread at this time.

well homosexuality at one time was against the law. I was just giving those as examples what i was trying to say is we basically have the same idea on morals and to treat people equally but we have differnt opinions on what is going to far and is un moral.

hope
26-07-13, 19:15
Isn't he the one proclaiming that all muslims are enemies number one?!
Yes, I believe so.


Now he is for freedom of religion,
Aha, the old Folly of a Fickle Mind Syndrome..lol [ although it seems to be heading in the right direction]


Freedom of Religion Acts in western world were formulated to stop inter-religion fighting, to stop hegemony of one major religion persecuting others. That's what happened in Poland, England and US to stop wars between faiths. There was not even one instance that Freedom of Religion was declared against Atheists attacking Religious people.
This is true. Good point.

Fire Haired
26-07-13, 21:47
Yes, I believe so.

what i mean is the Muslim world their corrupt extremist governments and terrorist who want to conquer the western world are enemy number one or two. Stop trying to make me who u want me to be.



Aha, the old Folly of a Fickle Mind Syndrome..lol [ although it seems to be heading in the right direction]

What the heck is ur problem!!! do u listen tpo what i say or do u just close ur eyes and think of all ur liberal stereotypes against people who seem conservative which is a good thing. What do u mean by heading in the right direction i have not changed my opinion this whole time i have always been into politics since i was like 4 years old this has always been my opinion.



This is true. Good point.

first of all i am not for religious persecution. Also atheist have been extremely extremely extremely extremely extremely rare throughout human history they have only been well known in very recent 1800's times. They have never been able to really hold power(except in recent times) so they have not had the opportunity to oppress people. U know Stalin and the whole communist thing was atheist(based their opinion on 1800's science) they killed more than Hitler and more than any religious war. Today in China their atheist government takes away many rights of religious people. Believers in God where very persecuted in Soviet Russia i have neighbors who grew up in soviet Russia their son had been one of my life long friends and they where taken away the right of religious freedom.

Also religious people(almost exclusively Christians) are but down and made fun off in american and european media 24/7 i have been witnessed to it my whole life. Also in american education system mainly universities and colleges relgious people are put down alot. My Dad getting a phd in philoshy is put down for his christian opinions eve though he goes to a catholic school one teacher intentionally gave him bad grades because of his opinion then later attempted to my dad and stopped doing it.

In the western world today Christians are defintley put down more in the media and just the establishment period than atheist. Also Lebrok obviously u did not study history on atheist percussion on Religious people because Communism and soviet Russia is a great example.

LeBrok
27-07-13, 01:43
i have not changed my opinion this whole time i have always been into politics since i was like 4 years old this has always been my opinion.
.

What!!!??? You didn't change your mind since age of 4? It must mean only one thing. At age of 4 you were already a fully developed genius!!! Poor Einstein had to wait till his 30s for his brain to mature, to create General Relativity. And he is known to change his mind on some subjects.

Generally speaking. Do you realize consequences of your statements? Or is it the case that thoughts a spewing so fast from your mouth or fingers that you are not able to analyze implications of your thoughts?

LeBrok
27-07-13, 01:47
Also religious people(almost exclusively Christians) are but down and made fun off in american and european media 24/7 i have been witnessed to it my whole life. Also in american education system mainly universities and colleges relgious people are put down alot. My Dad getting a phd in philoshy is put down for his christian opinions eve though he goes to a catholic school one teacher intentionally gave him bad grades because of his opinion then later attempted to my dad and stopped doing it.

Could it be the case, that smart people (that's why it happens mostly in universities) realise that religion is in conflict with understanding of the world and go away from it?

Fire Haired
27-07-13, 01:59
Could it be the case, that smart people (that's why it happens mostly in universities) realise that religion is in conflict with understanding of the world and go away from it?

I honestly don't think that is what it is. Why do u keep ignoring the fact far left winged people rule our media, rule the american establishment. mis represent and insult conservatives, and not accepting of other opinions for example when chick fillia owner was against gay marriage. I think it is most likely because it was people from the 1960's who now the old people. Also what is with ur hate for religion u are so hateful u think it should not even exist u show a snobby left winged dis respect to everything i say ur not as smart as u think u are. I try to be nice i dont want to dis respect u honestly but i mean u are like extremely "un Tolernt". Reminds me of our media which posses people like me as hateful, un tolernt, idiots.

Fire Haired
27-07-13, 02:01
What!!!??? You didn't change your mind since age of 4? It must mean only one thing. At age of 4 you were already a fully developed genius!!! Poor Einstein had to wait till his 30s for his brain to mature, to create General Relativity. And he is known to change his mind on some subjects.

Generally speaking. Do you realize consequences of your statements? Or is it the case that thoughts a spewing so fast from your mouth or fingers that you are not able to analyze implications of your thoughts?

I worded that wrong i have been into politics since i was about 4 years old but i have not always had the same opinion. But i have though about things the same way because it is my personality i have one just like everyone else. Can u please stop with the petty insults.

Fire Haired
27-07-13, 02:09
Lebrok u seem pretty un tolerant like my dad's teacher mayor Emanuel(of Chicago). U have such a strong hate for religion UR UN TOLERANT. I want to make this perfectly clear i have said this to u like 100 times. I am not hateful towards gays i dont want to be hatful towards anyone. I think people have the right to believe what they want to, say what they want, have what ever religion they want i think all people should have equal rights. U keep trying to put evidence on me that somehow i only want my religion to be allowed where are u getting this idea u twist my words. Can u please stop setro typing me as a complet ignorant idiot and giving a insult every time u post.

U have the same hateful and un tolerant attitude so many liberals i have seen have. U think u know everything and are somehow better than human and all people in the past and complete idiots u want nothing with tradition. U are just as hatful and close minded as religious extremist u criticize so much.

LeBrok
27-07-13, 02:12
I worded that wrong i have been into politics since i was about 4 years old but i have not always had the same opinion. But i have though about things the same way because it is my personality i have one just like everyone else. Can u please stop with the petty insults.
Do you think this trait of personality was genetic? Your nature. It would explain why it is the same at age 4 and 15. Otherwise nurture wouldn't affect this trait much through 11 years.

Fire Haired
27-07-13, 02:24
Do you think this trait of personality was genetic? Your nature. It would explain why it is the same at age 4 and 15. Otherwise nurture wouldn't affect this trait much through 11 years.

No alot of my personality is learned but it combined with my nature. Of course my personality at 4 was similar but not exactly the same. I dont know about other people but i would guess i have gone through the same life stages and learned stuff everyone else has.

LeBrok
27-07-13, 02:32
I am not hateful towards gays i dont want to be hatful towards anyone. I think people have the right to believe what they want to, say what they want, have what ever religion they want i think all people should have equal rights. U keep trying to put evidence on me that somehow i only want my religion to be allowed where are u getting this idea u twist my words. Can u please stop setro typing me as a complet ignorant idiot and giving a insult every time u post.
If you wrote it first time I would believe you. I could even understand that this is true for you and you believe your words. But for the rest of the world: It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it is a duck!


U have the same hateful and un tolerant attitude so many liberals i have seen have. U think u know everything and are somehow better than human and all people in the past and complete idiots u want nothing with tradition. U are just as hatful and close minded as religious extremist u criticize so much
Again, it is only how you see and feel the world is treating you. I wish you could try to think like other people do, put yourself in other's shoes, feel some compassion, be more inclusive, tolerant, or even true and honest to your nature.
But for now you only play the victim and blame others or the world in general for all the maladies. You have some strong believing "syndrome", giving you inclusive rights for the truth, and creating feeling as you're the victim against them, the others, the gays, the muslims, the liberals, the media, the pro gay scientists, etc, etc.
Can't you see the mental cage you locked yourself in, to keep the others away?


U have the same hateful and un tolerant attitude so many liberals i have seen have but only towards you or people like you. Because you know, my tolerance stops with intolerant people.
Why hateful? I never wished you anything bad. Perhaps you're using your own definition?

LeBrok
27-07-13, 02:33
No alot of my personality is learned but it combined with my nature. Of course my personality at 4 was similar but not exactly the same. I dont know about other people but i would guess i have gone through the same life stages and learned stuff everyone else has.
Are you sure there is nothing genetic in traits of personality or human character?

Fire Haired
27-07-13, 03:29
Are you sure there is nothing genetic in traits of personality or human character?

I defintley think there are the human personality period our ability to learn in in our nature. I think what happens is we have our instinct which combines with what we learn. One of our insticts is learning and i think some people learn differently. I defintley have personality traits that exist in other people of my family and some personality traits i have i learned not even from my family. I think if u really want an idea ask psychologist or ur self. Look at ur life i bet u can see some is the way u where born some is how ur natural instinct reacts to learning stuff and some is completely learned.

It is impossible to figure out why we have all of our personality traits.

Fire Haired
27-07-13, 03:58
If you wrote it first time I would believe you. I could even understand that this is true for you and you believe your words. But for the rest of the world: It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it is a duck!

I know i may seem like that hateful person but i am not and i try not to be. U have defintley shown just as much hate and un tolerance on the other side as i have. U accused me of hating Muslims and that only my religion should be allowed. I never said that all i said is their extremist governments and terriost are a huge threat to the western world because they want to destroy us. They are one of our biggest threats in that way. I am not hating all Muslims my family actulley has many Muslim friends i have Muslim neighbors they are not bad people. Their government is i wont ignore the dangers in the muslim world.

When have a showed any hate towards gays sure i say what they are doing is un natural but i would treat them like any other person. I am not this duck u say i am.



Again, it is only how you see and feel the world is treating you. I wish you could try to think like other people do, put yourself in other's shoes, feel some compassion, be more inclusive, tolerant, or even true and honest to your nature.
But for now you only play the victim and blame others or the world in general for all the maladies. You have some strong believing "syndrome", giving you inclusive rights for the truth, and creating feeling as you're the victim against them, the others, the gays, the muslims, the liberals, the media, the pro gay scientists, etc, etc.
Can't you see the mental cage you locked yourself in, to keep the others away?

i see what u are saying i am acting like a victim and but what i am saying is true. Also the who Liberal mind set is based on being a victim modern libearlism ws born on acting like a victum of religion and other things. Of course the victumisn was true but even today liberals claim being victims when they are the ones with the power in the western world. I will try to understand how others with a diff opinion feel. Give me evidence i am not inclusive and tolerant those are just fancy words u use on every conservative. I repeated it so many times we have the same idea on human rights and tolerance just we have a diff opinion on what the limits are.

I totally understand the i think i am always right and blaming my problems on other people. I have always been over confident on my opinions. Ur right i have been known to victimize myself a big part of that is being the youngest brother. Now i dont blame the gays, Muslims, liberals for my problems. U are just adding all the people u think all conservatives hate. It is very true our media is extremely biased and libearl. I have a diff opinion than them it is true those people who wrote the article and talked about brain sizes of dead gay people they where biased. U still think i am ur stereotype of a hateful conservative. I can kind off get what ur saying but i do look at things and time and time again the liberal mind set seems very wrong to me ur part of the reason.

I have kind off thought there is no way i am wrong there is some truth in what u are saying i have noticed it myself. I am like that in all arguments like baseball.


but only towards you or people like you. Because you know, my tolerance stops with intolerant people.
Why hateful? I never wished you anything bad. Perhaps you're using your own definition?

Lebrok i am not this stereotypical un tolerant person. Just because someone has a diff opinion than u does not make u tolerant. ur tolerance stops with people who have a diff opinon than u. At least u admitted to ur un tolerance. Lebrok u have been dis respectful in all of our conversations. I have also said some terrible things some threatening i wont lie.

I think both of us are a little un tolerant to people with a diff opinion can we agree on that. It is natural people are not open minded and that is not always bad. We naturally like people who are different than us liberals defintley are not excluded from human nature. I dont think we are that diff we dis agree on some things like gay marraige.

hope
27-07-13, 14:54
. I think people have the right to believe what they want to, say what they want, have what ever religion they want i think all people should have equal rights.

Okay, so how would you fit this new found policy of rights against your previous statements such as on gay people:

"It is sick and I dont want then doing sick things in my society"

"Because i dont want guys and guys doing it or girls and girls doing it. that is just wrong and sick and unatural and if it is unatural i dont want in our society. we are not just suppose to let people do whatever they want."

Right off you seem to be limiting those new ideas for equal rights.

And women may not fare any better under you:

"Men take leadership roles, every society does this to-day"
"I am not putting down females, ....just putting down modern thinkers who go against human nature

So straight off we see you have failed to accommodate two sections of the community in your new idea of "equal rights for all" No, I count wrong, that should be three, as you seem to have little space either for "modern thinkers"
So in answer to your question a few posts back, "do you listen to what i say" ..the answer seems to be, yes. Perhaps the question should be, do you remember what you say?
Do you consider, when you take the stage declaring people are being INtolerant towards you and you really believe in rights for all, that your own words themselves, [which I listened to] make you fall?

hope
27-07-13, 15:31
F.H..Thanks for post 45..I do have an interest in listening to people speak about themselves.
Unfortunately,interesting as this is, I am not sure what it actually has to do with O.T. or which of your many points to answer. You flit from one thing to another so quickly.
For instance you here cover:
Sexual harassment...devil worship...The chick fella...the Georgians...LeBrok... gay marriage...liberals...conservatives...your dads philosophy grade...LeBrok again...a short history on Ireland and the Ulster Scots..a condensed history of America...hillbillies...immoral television programmes and movies...and gender roles.......
Is there a point at all to go with this?
.


.

LeBrok
27-07-13, 23:27
I honestly don't think that is what it is. Not really much on my intriguing question.



Why do u keep ignoring the fact far left winged people rule our media, rule the american establishment. mis represent and insult conservatives, and not accepting of other opinions for example when chick fillia owner was against gay marriage. I think it is most likely because it was people from the 1960's who now the old people. Also what is with ur hate for religion u are so hateful u think it should not even exist u show a snobby left winged dis respect to everything i say ur not as smart as u think u are. I try to be nice i dont want to dis respect u honestly but i mean u are like extremely "un Tolernt". Reminds me of our media which posses people like me as hateful, un tolernt, idiots.
By now it has pretty much became your propaganda piece, repeated countless times already. Unfortunately it became only Truth for you.

Ike
31-07-13, 14:27
But for now you only play the victim and blame others or the world in general for all the maladies. You have some strong believing "syndrome", giving you inclusive rights for the truth, and creating feeling as you're the victim against them, the others, the gays, the muslims, the liberals, the media, the pro gay scientists, etc, etc.
Can't you see the mental cage you locked yourself in, to keep the others away?


Dude, it's one thing when one is OK with something. He can be OK with muslims, gays, aliens, whatever, as long as someone keeps it for himself, and does whatever suits his needs with himself. BUT, once it goes public it's a normal thing to stand up against it, if you feel jeopardized. If he doesn't want to watch religious people do some insane rites, or he feels disgust with gays, or thinks alien sex movies are obnoxious, he has the right to say it out loud. Even more, if that is the opinion of the majority, others must go with it. Why should majority care to adopt to abnormal or extravagant characters? It is supposed to be other way. He is practically being caged from outside. That's the price to pay for being tolerant -‘Let ‘em have one finger, they take your whole hand’.

Templar
31-07-13, 15:42
I don't think that humanity will ever end up becoming one "race", there will always be diversity (even mixed children are very diverse). Especially considering the giant leaps in genetic engineering that have been happening for the last 20-30 years. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if most parents of the future choose for their kids to have blue eyes or other characteristics which are nowadays considered rare and appealing. People might even start modifying their features to look like nothing like we see in any of modern humans, like reptilian skin or furry bodies.

Besa
19-03-15, 22:42
I don't see how one race could ever happen. It's not like every person from one race prefers a person from another race, there are allot of people who are attracted to their own people.

LeBrok
20-03-15, 01:48
I don't see how one race could ever happen. Like it is happening in America, Canada, Australia the modern multicultural countries. Like it happened already in ancient Egypt where white people mixed with black Nubians. Like in Brazil where you can find every shade of human skin and every shape of a nose. Brazil is the best example how this happens.


It's not like every person from one race prefers a person from another race, there are allot of people who are attracted to their own people. It doesn't need to be every person. It is enough even if small percentage mixes every decade. After couple of thousand of years the mixed genes will flow across whole society.

If you can check few genetic threads (here on Eupedia) about ancient and current Europeans, you would notice that all Europeans are a mixture of many ancient peoples (or subraces if you will) that moved into Europe since Mezolitic. There is not even one original "Mesolithic race" European anymore. There is no pure Neolithic European anymore either. We are all mixtures of the same ancestral components though in different proportions. This is what we get after about 6 thousand years of mixing.
Do your genetic test and we can tell you how mixed you are already.

If you don't believe it can happen in 2 thousand years, considering hyper mobility of today's and future society, and give it 10,000 years or 100,000 years. One thing is sure, people mix and will mix more in the future. Complete mixed society is only a matter of time, and there is no shortage of time in Universe.

Maleth
20-03-15, 11:55
If you don't believe it can happen in 2 thousand years, considering hyper mobility of today's and future society, and give it 10,000 years or 100,000 years. One thing is sure, people mix and will mix more in the future. Complete mixed society is only a matter of time, and there is no shortage of time in Universe.

This is a high likely scenario (unless we go through some cataclysmic event that cannot be dealt with, which puts humans in some kind of bottle neck situation or total eradication........we could have conquered Mars by then :smile: )

Kardu
20-03-15, 14:59
Like it is happening in America, Canada, Australia the modern multicultural countries. Like it happened already in ancient Egypt where white people mixed with black Nubians. Like in Brazil where you can find every shade of human skin and every shape of a nose. Brazil is the best example how this happens.


Do your genetic test and we can tell you how mixed you are already.


LeBrok, can you give statistics of mixed race couples in USA, Australia etc. compared to general populations?

And, for example, I do have my autosomal test, and I don't have any admix whatsoever from other major races.

Also keep in mind, those old mixes you refer were not result of some hippie happy coupling, but outcome of violence and conquest.

LeBrok
21-03-15, 17:58
LeBrok, can you give statistics of mixed race couples in USA, Australia etc. compared to general populations?

And, for example, I do have my autosomal test, and I don't have any admix whatsoever from other major races.

Also keep in mind, those old mixes you refer were not result of some hippie happy coupling, but outcome of violence and conquest.

According to Statistics Canada about 4% of all marriages are mixed race. This is a double from 2% in 1990. Keep in mind that Caucasians are still majority 77%, therefore visible minorities are at 23%, of all Canadians, which reduced chances of mixed marriages.

Here is a very nice summary of Canadian multiculturalism in regards to mixed couples.
http://www.canada.com/Number+mixed+race+couples+rise+Canada+StatsCan/2928592/story.html

What surprised me in this report is that the highest ratio of mixing happens in Japanese community, about 75%? In huge contrast to very conservative demographic (not to say racist) policies of Japanese government "protecting" purity of Japan.


- Japanese had the highest proportion of marrying or partnering outside their visible minority group, with 75 per cent of those coupled off choosing a non-Japanese partner. Next are Latin Americans at 47 per cent, blacks at 41 per cent and Filipinos at 33 per cent.

People with higher education and higher income tend to mix more too.


- Among Canadian cities, Vancouver has the largest share of mixed couples, at 8.5 per cent, followed by Toronto with 7.1 per cent and Calgary with 6.1 per cent.

Like it or not, people are mixing, will be mixing and speed of mixing is increasing every year.

In a thousand years we should have one well mixed population, borderless nations and everyone speaking english.

Kardu
21-03-15, 21:51
Like it or not, people are mixing, will be mixing and speed of mixing is increasing every year.

In a thousand years we should have one well mixed population, borderless nations and everyone speaking english.

We won't be there to see but it won't happen not in 1000 nor in 10000 years :) This utopian leftist fantasy is against human group psychology. And no, I don't like it ;)

LeBrok
22-03-15, 00:00
We won't be there to see but it won't happen not in 1000 nor in 10000 years :) This utopian leftist fantasy is against human group psychology. And no, I don't like it ;)

When Leonardo Da Vinci was designing his flying machine 500 years ago, many conservative people swore that people are not meant to fly and that will never ever ever fly. Look in the sky, there we are, and the world has not ended. ;)

Angela
22-03-15, 06:19
We won't be there to see but it won't happen not in 1000 nor in 10000 years :) This utopian leftist fantasy is against human group psychology. And no, I don't like it ;)


It's irrelevant whether any of us like it or not. What is relevant is what genetics tells us about human history. There is no "pure" population. The Georgians, as people of the southern Caucasus, are a mixture of Near Eastern farmers who moved to the Caucasus (who were themselves a mixture of "Basal Eurasian" hunter gatherers and hunter gatherers from another human lineage, which then admixed with other hunter gatherers from yet another human lineage (ANE), and which lineage, by the way, has some correlation with a component present in south Asians.

On admixture runs of more recent, drifted, autosomal components, look up the Georgians:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadF9CLUJnTUdSbkVJaDR2UkRtUE9ka UE#gid=2

In North America, in terms of Europeans of varying backgrounds, it's a total mishmash. I've said before that in twenty-five years you practically won't be able to find an American who is of 100% Italian descent. (Among fourth generation descendents of Italians, no more than 8% have exclusively Italian ancestry.That doesn't mean that part Italians don't identify as Italian-Americans, of course.) Even Jews, famously endogamous for 2,000 years, are marrying out at a rate of about 50%. If you don't want your children to admix with people of another ethnic group, the U.S., North America in general, should not be your first choice for emigration.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/why-is-jewish-intermarriage-the-highest-among-all-us-faiths/
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp312.pdf

As for inter-racial marriage in the U.S., "Interracial marriages in the U.S. have climbed to 4.8 million (1 in 12 marriages) in 2010[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage#cite_note-HuffingtonHopeYen-3) as a steady flow of new Asian and Hispanic immigrants expands the pool of prospective spouses.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage#cite_note-5) In 2010, 15% of new marriages were interracial.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage#cite_note-HuffingtonHopeYen-3) In 2010, 25% of Asians, 25% of Hispanics, 17.1% of blacks, and 9.4% of whites married interracially.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage#cite_note-HuffingtonHopeYen-3) Of the 275,500 new interracial marriages in 2010, 43% were white-Hispanic couples, 14.4% were white-Asian, 11.9% were white-black, and the remainder were other combinations.[6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage#cite_note-6) In the northeastern U.S. for example, Puerto Ricans, who carry AmerIndian as well as SSA ancestry, Cape Verdeans, Cubans etc., and especially the women, "marry out" at pretty high rates. Unfortunately, I think there's often a "racialist" motivation to this; it's called "lightening up". Pathetic, in my estimation. On the West Coast, Chinese and Japanese Americans marry out at a high rate. In California and the southwestern U.S., Hispanics marry out in large numbers.

For African Americans the situation is a bit different. Much of their admixture (up to 25-30% European in some cases) is the result of mingling from early in the history of slavery, and less than that now.

From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage
"[t]he social stigma related to Black interracial marriages still exists in today's society. Research by Tucker and Mitchell-Kerman from 1990 has shown that Blacks intermarry far less than any other non-White group[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage#cite_note-7) and in 2010, only 17.1% of Blacks married interracially, a rate far lower than the rates for Hispanics and Asians.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage#cite_note-HuffingtonHopeYen-3) Black interracial marriages in particular engender problems associated with racist attitudes and perceived relational inappropriateness.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage#cite_note-8)"

However, that isn't strange in situations where one group is seen as occupying a position lower on the "class" ladder. As that changes, so will the levels of admixture. Even at current rates, however, look at it this way: what will the population in the U.S. be like if there is this level of mixing for the next 1,000 years or 2,000 years even with no change in socio-economic status?

That is the nature of a dynamic society with immigration from diverse areas. I'm sure that China will remain pretty homogenous for a long time. There are how many millions of them now? Also, how many millions of Indians, and Africans? For their genotypes to substantially change would require vast amounts of admixture with Europeans, and there aren't enough of them, and they're not going to be moving to China any time soon. However, if there was some massive invasion of one area of the world by another, the rest of Asia or even the U.S. by China, everything would change.

Maciamo
22-03-15, 09:51
I don't think that the world population will homogenize into a single ethnicity any time soon, or ever because of geographic barriers and isolation. There are always remote places where people don't mix with others, or at least at an extremely low rate. Look at Papua New Guinean tribes, Andaman Islanders, some Amazon tribes, etc.

If Andaman Islanders have managed to remain isolated from the outside world in crowded South Asia for perhaps 50,000 years, I doubt that such pockets of isolation will suddenly disappear.

Even if those isolated tribes gave up their traditional lifestyle and joined the rest of the world, it would take thousands of years before the whole world is racially homogeneous. The bigger the world population the more generations it takes to spread the genes. With vertical farming and other new technologies, the Earth could support over 30 billion people.

If humans suddenly started having more children everywhere (even in Africa) and the world population dropped fast to 1 billion or less, that could accelerate the homogenization process, if people remain increasingly mobile.

However, the most cosmopolitan areas are typically big cities, then smaller cities, leaving the countryside relatively unmixed. This is where ancestral ethnic groups will survive the longest. Once again, the more remote the countryside (e.g. Alpine valley village, Tibetan hamlet, small island with few outside visitors...), the longer the genetic isolation will endure.

In any case we would witness the creation of new ethnic group at the continental or regional scale, as has always happened. If you start in China with over 1 billion "pure" East Asians, you can't expect to end up with the same population in a few centuries as in sub-Saharan Africa where the starting population is "pure" African, no matter how much natural immigration.

Then people do not choose to migrate to another country by accident. Mexicans typically choose to migrate to the USA, rarely to China or even Europe. And conversely very few Americans migrate to Mexico. Much more Africans migrate to Europe than the other way round, and it is typically to Western Europe, very rarely Eastern Europe. With such migration patterns, even if people mix perfectly across racial lines (which hasn't been the case even in the USA after 300 years of Blacks and Whites living together) the ending population in Western Europe would be very different from the one in Eastern Europe. The same regional fractioning would happen everywhere in the world.

I do believe that new racial groups will emerge from racial intermarriages, but they just won't be uniform on the global scale. Given enough time, a new North American ethnicity will develop, but a different one from the West European, etc. Let's also note that the current trend of interracial marriages is strongest in Western countries (Latin America included, as it is actually where this trend started with the European colonisation), but relatively rare in non-Western countries, even developed ones like Japan and Korea. The Japanese do intermarry with other racial groups, but it is typically Western men with Japanese women, and most end up living in Western countries as Japan isn't exactly foreigner friendly. When Japanese men seek foreign brides to live with them in Japan, they are often Korean, Chinese or Southeast Asian (esp. Filipinas). This is why Japan will remain racially East Asian for longer despite intermarriages.

Fire Haired14
22-03-15, 11:20
In America new genetically diverse cultural and ethnic identities formed. Latin America is a current example of this bi/tri/etc. futuristic world because Iberians, Amerindians, and Africans all mixed, yet most Americans are ignorant of this and view Latino as a type of pure race. In the USA white is used to define people, even culturally, because all the Euro ethnic groups mixed and assimilated into the same American culture.

Maleth
22-03-15, 12:00
Maciamo made some good points. There will always be isolated areas that remains more or less homogeneous. But am I correct to say that even in ancient admixtures have happened in high income economic areas of the world creating a new dimensions and standards in various aspects? Egypt, Mesopotamia (babylon and its chaotic languages, I think lebrok mentioned it at some point) Greece, Rome creating the mixtures we find today? Currently we have New york and London. I can only speak of London but being there you see people of all races in each and every part of its economy and I don't think that any of these cities would have achieved their present dynamics without so much mixing, new ideas and so on. Dubai is another one, and it hosts more outsiders then locals (with the difference that they will never be allowed to get citizenship there) China and India are maybe an exception, but then again I am not sure if they can be put on the same level as say New york or London. Of course there are many other cosmopolitan cities one can mention having the same effect. I think too much inbreeding, nationalism is more likely to make any nation weak in many aspects. Maybe I am wrong. Just thinking loud here.

Kardu
22-03-15, 13:06
Angela, those autosomal components you mention for Georgians are from different subgroups of the same race.

And again, you all try to hide/ignore the fact that most of the old time race mixing was due to conquest, violence and rape.

So enough with your agenda...

And no, I am not conservative.

Angela
22-03-15, 14:50
Angela, those autosomal components you mention for Georgians are from different subgroups of the same race.

And again, you all try to hide/ignore the fact that most of the old time race mixing was due to conquest, violence and rape.

So enough with your agenda...

And no, I am not conservative.


Stating facts is not proof of some "agenda", and I never brought politics into the discussion. As Maciamo and I said, there are parts of the world, more isolated, or with huge populations and little immigration, where differences will persist much longer, absent some cataclysmic event, but in North America, for example, given a thousand years or so there will be a new admixed group, and whatever the sad facts of human history, in the here and now I assure you it's not happening because of conquest or rape. It's propinquity.

It also has nothing to do with any personal preferences of mine. Heck, I'm so antediluvian that I keep plotting how to get my daughter a job in Italy for a year or so in hopes she'll come home with an Italian husband, but then I'm not quite "American"!:grin:

As for Caucasians and Near Easterners, perhaps this is news, but there are any number of people in this hobby, quite well known some of them, who indeed do not think they are "white" or members of the "white" race. Strangely enough, a few of them are themselves SSA admixed. Human psychology is endlessly fascinating.

If we're talking about further back, the ancestral groups that mixed to produce "Europeans" did not look very much like modern Europeans; indeed, some of them probably looked pretty "Australoid" or "South Indian", but then phenotypes change based on the environment. I doubt environmental factors will have much effect going forward, however, at least not in industrialized countries, as we rather control for the environment.

Kardu
22-03-15, 15:31
Stating facts is not proof of some "agenda", and I never brought politics into the discussion. As Maciamo and I said, there are parts of the world, more isolated, or with huge populations and little immigration, where differences will persist much longer, absent some cataclysmic event, but in North America, for example, given a thousand years or so there will be a new admixed group, and whatever the sad facts of human history, in the here and now I assure you it's not happening because of conquest or rape. It's propinquity.

It also has nothing to do with any personal preferences of mine. Heck, I'm so antediluvian that I keep plotting how to get my daughter a job in Italy for a year or so in hopes she'll come home with an Italian husband, but then I'm not quite "American"!:grin:

As for Caucasians and Near Easterners, perhaps this is news, but there are any number of people in this hobby, quite well known some of them, who indeed do not think they are "white" or members of the "white" race. Strangely enough, a few of them are themselves SSA admixed. Human psychology is endlessly fascinating.

If we're talking about further back, the ancestral groups that mixed to produce "Europeans" did not look very much like modern Europeans; indeed, some of them probably looked pretty "Australoid" or "South Indian", but then phenotypes change based on the environment. I doubt environmental factors will have much effect going forward, however, at least not in industrialized countries, as we rather control for the environment.

Under 'agenda' I meant more Lebrok's kind of position not you.

People can think about themselves whatever they like, but in strictly anthropological terms Georgians belong to Europeid metarace.

Whatever ancestors looked like, it is just fine how it is. I appreciate diversity, I don't want everybody to be part of some amorphic grey mass.

And again ancient mixing was due to conquest and rape. Today's mixing in cosmopolitan areas will never happen on large scale. Even in Brasil there is no mixing in higher classes who live in gated communities...

Angela
22-03-15, 18:06
Under 'agenda' I meant more Lebrok's kind of position not you.

People can think about themselves whatever they like, but in strictly anthropological terms Georgians belong to Europeid metarace.

Whatever ancestors looked like, it is just fine how it is. I appreciate diversity, I don't want everybody to be part of some amorphic grey mass.

And again ancient mixing was due to conquest and rape. Today's mixing in cosmopolitan areas will never happen on large scale. Even in Brasil there is no mixing in higher classes who live in gated communities...

You're perfectly free to have your preferences; whatever floats your boat. That has nothing to do with the facts about racial admixture in the U.S., for which I've provided statistics. Nor does it have anything to do with attitudes in the U.S. The Pew Poll (a very respected group) has examined the issue in depth:

"Furthermore, the 2008 Pew Survey found more than a third of adults (35%) say they have a family member who is married to someone of a different race. And, most Americans say they approve of racial or ethnic intermarriage – not just in the abstract, but in their own families. More than six-in-ten say it would be fine with them if a family member told them they were going to marry someone from any of three major race/ethnic groups other than their own and over 70% approve of interacial marriage in general.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage#cite_note-4) "

The numbers will only increase in the younger generations. It's no doubt true that for people who choose to live in the Caucasus, or in the depths of southern India, or in internal China, the odds are that their children will indeed "inmarry". It will be different in more cosmopolitan parts of the world, whatever the parents think about it.

As to the people of the Caucasus, what anthropologists think is not dispositive for the average man on the street if that man happens to be a racist of the Nordicist persuasion. Of course, there are severe social and even economic consequences to expressing any such view in the U.S. today.

As to those Brazilians living in gated communities, like in other places in Latin America, they have anywhere up to 10% and more Amerindian and SSA; they just don't want to admit it. I've found it extremely interesting that some of the people most obsessed with who is lighter and darker, or who is more "exotic" in terms of Europeans or Near Easterners turn out to be of admixed ancestry themselves, even if they only recently discovered it. That is what comes of having been raised in societies where looking like a slave or an aborigine means you are relegated to a lower socio-economic status. I find it very sad. Of course, if one takes the long, objective view, if China all of a sudden conquered the world, you'd get people having eye surgery, flattening their noses and dying their hair pitch black. That's just human nature, alas.

You might find this John Hersey novel enlightening....great writers so often provide deep insights into human nature.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1495461.White_Lotus

Kardu
22-03-15, 18:55
My main point is that tribalism, us vs. them group psychology is human nature (race based gangs in multicultural America anyone?). Even if current state of racial and ethnic situation will be somehow altered due to intensive globalist brainwashing politics, in its place new diverse groups will arise. There will be no one race in the future however remote (unless some global cataclysm reduces human population to minimum).

Angela
22-03-15, 19:08
My main point is that tribalism, us vs. them group psychology is human nature (race based gangs in multicultural America anyone?). Even if current state of racial and ethnic situation will be somehow altered due to intensive globalist brainwashing politics, in its place new diverse groups will arise. There will be no one race in the future however remote (unless some global cataclysm reduces human population to minimum).

You keep repeating opinions unsupported and, to be fair, perhaps incapable of being supported by facts, and I keep providing you with facts which contradict those assertions, at least with regard to the U.S. Given that over 70% of Americans approve of inter-racial marriage, I think you could say that tribalism here, at least, is on the decline. Whether in the future this "new" tribe might be intolerant of other "tribes", I don't know. I have no great opinion of humanity, and I suppose it's perfectly possible that they'll do something stupid like that. Look at the Balkans, or, as an even better example, Northern Ireland. They're practically genetic clones of one another, and some of these men seem to positively relish this fratricidal warfare. It's all very depressing.

Oh, interesting that you think preaching tolerance of other groups and respect for one another's humanity is brainwashing. Perhaps it is, but what is racism? It's just brainwashing of another kind. Even if it feeds into the baser instincts of the id, does that mean we as a society should pander to it? What possible good would that do? People would be far better off getting an education, a decent job, marrying and having babies than letting some demagogues distract them from the real issues by deflecting all the blame onto some "other". Now there you have my actual opinion. :)

Perhaps it's best to agree to disagree.

Kardu
22-03-15, 20:38
What education has to do with it? Unless you mean some liberal agenda education :)
The most racist persons in history were very educated folks.

I don't really believe those 'facts' which mostly stem from biased sources.

Preaching 'tolerance' usually is a subversive way to undermine targeted group's identity and security.

'Humanity' is a social construct.

LeBrok
22-03-15, 20:47
Maciamo made some good points. There will always be isolated areas that remains more or less homogeneous. But am I correct to say that even in ancient admixtures have happened in high income economic areas of the world creating a new dimensions and standards in various aspects? Egypt, Mesopotamia (babylon and its chaotic languages, I think lebrok mentioned it at some point) Greece, Rome creating the mixtures we find today? Currently we have New york and London. I can only speak of London but being there you see people of all races in each and every part of its economy and I don't think that any of these cities would have achieved their present dynamics without so much mixing, new ideas and so on. Dubai is another one, and it hosts more outsiders then locals (with the difference that they will never be allowed to get citizenship there) China and India are maybe an exception, but then again I am not sure if they can be put on the same level as say New york or London. Of course there are many other cosmopolitan cities one can mention having the same effect. I think too much inbreeding, nationalism is more likely to make any nation weak in many aspects. Maybe I am wrong. Just thinking loud here.

We can easily add Singapore as a vibrant multicultural and economic hub, and proxy of the future world. Multiethnic pot and all speaking english.

LeBrok
22-03-15, 21:56
I don't think that the world population will homogenize into a single ethnicity any time soon, or ever because of geographic barriers and isolation. There are always remote places where people don't mix with others, or at least at an extremely low rate. Look at Papua New Guinean tribes, Andaman Islanders, some Amazon tribes, etc.
Good point. Speed of mixing will vary. In big economic centers, which draw people from around the world, the process will be much faster. There will be always some enclaves resisting mixing. Be eat culturally or religiously insulated like Amish people.


If Andaman Islanders have managed to remain isolated from the outside world in crowded South Asia for perhaps 50,000 years, I doubt that such pockets of isolation will suddenly disappear.

Even if those isolated tribes gave up their traditional lifestyle and joined the rest of the world, it would take thousands of years before the whole world is racially homogeneous. The bigger the world population the more generations it takes to spread the genes. With vertical farming and other new technologies, the Earth could support over 30 billion people. These places are insulated now, but in the future, when whole world will be developed, educated, and mobile these places will be wide exposed to the world. Unless more Amish type enclaves pope up to protect the purity of their race and culture.

In future world of robotics and 3D printers people will have even more time to travel, mingle, emigrate, move to different climatic zone, etc. This will help intermarriages dramatically.


In any case we would witness the creation of new ethnic group at the continental or regional scale, as has always happened. If you start in China with over 1 billion "pure" East Asians, you can't expect to end up with the same population in a few centuries as in sub-Saharan Africa where the starting population is "pure" African, no matter how much natural immigration.

Regional and continental mixing will be much more visible for a long time before final global race appears.



Then people do not choose to migrate to another country by accident. Mexicans typically choose to migrate to the USA, rarely to China or even Europe. And conversely very few Americans migrate to Mexico. Much more Africans migrate to Europe than the other way round, and it is typically to Western Europe, very rarely Eastern Europe. With such migration patterns, even if people mix perfectly across racial lines (which hasn't been the case even in the USA after 300 years of Blacks and Whites living together) the ending population in Western Europe would be very different from the one in Eastern Europe. The same regional fractioning would happen everywhere in the world.

The final world race will depend of number of members of today's races coming to the mix. US is a good example how it might go. African American impact on genetic pool of white Americans was very minimal, due to much smaller numbers of Blacks. In the other direction situation is way different. It is hard to find a black person of African in America descent (except new arrivals) without substantial European admixture. This is after 200 years of strict racial segregation, mostly out of wedlock by white masters.

Final proportions might be like this:
At around 2050 the population of the world should stabilize at around 10 billion. Roughly, 3 in 10 people will be East Asians, 2 in 10 South Asians, 1 in 10 European, 1 in 10 Amerindian/South American (whatever it is there), 3 of 10 African (2 for Sub Saharan). Even more roughly, the final world citizen should be 1/3 East Asian looking, 1/3 Black African looking, and 1/3 Caucasian (European/Middle Eastern )+ Amerindian

LeBrok
22-03-15, 23:05
Under 'agenda' I meant more Lebrok's kind of position not you.
I don't want everybody to be part of some amorphic grey mass. You don't want this to happen, but I have an agenda? I'm already feeling at ease with all the races and most cultures on this planet. Why would I want all to be of one race then? I never said this is my goal, and that I want this to happen, did I? Perhaps you want to prove me wrong and cite me?
All I did is to point to existing trends in multicultural societies and extrapolate these trends to the future. These trends has been supported statistically for many years. On other hand your argument consists only of your opinion and intolerant sub-tone.
But hey, if you don't want them to mix, perhaps you should tell them. It should stop the process.


amorphic grey mass. It happens that these "amorphic grey mass" people already exist in many multicultural countries. How do you think they feel, when educated and tolerant person like yourself tells them the truth? Obviously, they would love to feel as superior (colorful mass) person like yourself, but obviously they can't. They are just amorphic grey mass.



And again ancient mixing was due to conquest and rape. This is only a half truth. I'm sure you agree with the other omitted truths(agenda), that there are also mixing due to migrations, resettlement, love, infidelity, arranged marriages, trade of slaves, bride exchange, etc.


Today's mixing in cosmopolitan areas will never happen on large scale. Run small 8% intermarriage per generation in Vancouver (cosmopolitan city) through a formula and tell us how many years passes till 90% saturation. Perhaps then it will help you to imagine how it works. Your constant, unsubstantiated by any numbers or a research, mantra starts sounding like a broken record.


What education has to do with it? Unless you mean some liberal agenda education :)
The most racist persons in history were very educated folks. Nope, you only hear about these educated racists, because they were in position of power, well known, and therefore made in infamous by massmedia. You wouldn't have a chance to hear about uneducated racist from small English village, Louisiana plantation, who tortured his slaves to death. No news about him in newspaper.


I don't really believe those 'facts' which mostly stem from biased sources.
You don't even have one statistic or a research, out of hundreds done on the subject, to support your position. Are you sure that you are right against so many smart educated scientists who researched this?



Preaching 'tolerance' usually is a subversive way to undermine targeted group's identity and security. Tolerance can't be extended to intolerant and racist groups, who stand against tolerance. Do you have a problem with it?

Kardu
22-03-15, 23:34
LeBrok, you consider yourself a 'Citizen of the world', which is a motto of cultural marxists, liberals and leftists of various stripes who do have an agenda (not taking in account your other ideas in similar venue on this forum). So I haven't discovered America here.
If this mixing was such a natural occurrence why the need to spend billions on propaganda, censorship, directed campaigns etc. etc.
I am confident that no utopian craze will manage to alter natural law.
And out of curiosity, how do you plan to racially mix such "intolerant" societies as Japan or South Korea?

LeBrok
22-03-15, 23:58
LeBrok, you consider yourself a 'Citizen of the world', which is a motto of cultural marxists, liberals and leftists of various stripes who do have an agenda (not taking in account your other ideas in similar venue on this forum). So I haven't discovered America here. Perhaps you should take off your black and white glasses, because you mislabel people and put agenda in their thoughts.


If this mixing was such a natural occurrence why the need to spend billions on propaganda, censorship, directed campaigns etc. etc. What?! Who spends money encouraging mixing? When you have free, tolerant and inclusive societies people do whatever they want, and this includes marring whoever one wants, including race and gender.


I am confident that no utopian craze will manage to alter natural law. The "natural law" arraigned marriages from Georgian village? I'm sure wife beating was included in "natural law" there. Good all times, before cultural Marxism destroyed it.


And out of curiosity, how do you plan to racially mix such "intolerant" societies as Japan or South Korea? Nobody is going to force them to do anything, nor force them not to do. I'm just spotting a trend in today's world and not setting social engineering program. Do you get it? It is just a social trend, which exists, and documented countless times in statistics. Except you nobody denies it. Please, give us the one statistic, to support your opinion.
Japanese living in Canada intermarry in almost 50% of cases. And for your information, nobody is forcing them.

Kardu
23-03-15, 02:51
The "natural law" arraigned marriages from Georgian village? I'm sure wife beating was included in "natural law" there. Good all times, before cultural Marxism destroyed it.

LOL yet another example of how bigoted so called 'progressives' in reality are.

Behind any trend there is an individual or a group who desired it and made it happen. Trends do not appear magically out of thin air.

LeBrok
23-03-15, 04:11
LOL yet another example of how bigoted so called 'progressives' in reality are. I am a bigot, because I'm against arranged marriages and domestic violence?

Perhaps you think I'm against Georgians, because of this statement:

The "natural law" arraigned marriages from Georgian village? I'm sure wife beating was included in "natural law" there. Good all times, before cultural Marxism destroyed it.
Maybe you haven't been to Georgia for a long time and forgot the arrange marriages still exist, not mentioning bride kidnappings?
Oh look, we found out another way for people to mix thanks to your conservative old fashion values, Bride Kidnapping.


Behind any trend there is an individual or a group who desired it and made it happen. Yes, women desired equal rights, slaves desired freedom, young people desired to go with love and chose their spouses no mater what colour. How hard is to understand these simple human desires of freedom, equality and inclusiveness. Don't you feel it? Do you need to be taught this?

Kardu
23-03-15, 09:44
I am not a conservative :)

If so called equality and inclusiveness were natural traits, human history would not be determined by dominance and exclusiveness from times immemorial, and today's leftists of all stripes wouldn't need billions for brainwashing.

Main culprit is Gramsci :) not that heartbreaking story of love and freedom you tell

Angela
23-03-15, 15:39
I am not a conservative :)

If so called equality and inclusiveness were natural traits, human history would not be determined by dominance and exclusiveness from times immemorial, and today's leftists of all stripes wouldn't need billions for brainwashing.

Main culprit is Gramsci :) not that heartbreaking story of love and freedom you tell

Gramsci is the culprit or Gramsci described the phenomenon? You are talking about cultural hegemony I take it? You're not going to turn out to be one of those conspiracy...uh...folks are you? :grin: You do know that conspiracy theories are the last refuge of those who can't compete, or those who feel powerless, don't you?

Did "Cultural Marxists"and/or Hollywood elites have time machines? Are they responsible for the revolt of the women described in the Lysistrata?

"“What matters that I was born a woman, if I can cure your misfortunes? I pay my share of tolls and taxes, by giving men to the State. But you, you miserable greybeards, you contribute nothing to the public charges; on the contrary, you have wasted the treasure of our forefathers, as it was called, the treasure amassed in the days of the Persian Wars. You pay nothing at all in return; and into the bargain you endanger our lives and liberties by your mistakes. Have you one word to say for yourselves?... Ah! don't irritate me, you there, or I'll lay my slipper across your jaws; and it's pretty heavy.”
― Aristophanes (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1011.Aristophanes), Lysistrata (http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2482177)

“Magistrate: May I die a thousand deaths ere I obey one who wears a veil!

Lysistrata: If that's all that troubles you, here take my veil, wrap it round your head, and hold your tounge. Then take this basket; put on a girdle, card wool, munch beans. The War shall be women's business.”
― Aristophanes (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1011.Aristophanes), Lysistrata (http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2482177)

Perhaps they were behind the Wat Tyler rebellion in England in the 1300's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt

Were they whispering in the ear of the founders of the American Revolution when they wrote this?

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

Or what about this, from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address?

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."


A marvel of brevity, conciseness, allegory and soaring imagery, an entire book has been written deconstructing it: Gary Wills' http://books.google.com/books/about/Lincoln_at_Gettysburg.html?id=JyAOOJJFxfQC

Or this:
"That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle."

Or perhaps these cultural Marxists went back further and got to John Locke and the French Philosophes of the French Enlightenment? :smile:

giuseppe rossi
23-03-15, 16:02
Uber Racist Japanese, Koreans and Chinese need to import tens of milions of Negroes, South Asians, Hispanics and Arabs to become a vibrant and colorful society.

If they don't do it, America should bomb them to stone age for not enjoying the beauty of the Multi Racial society.

Angela
23-03-15, 16:38
Uber Racist Japanese, Koreans and Chinese need to import tens of milions of Negroes, South Asians, Hispanics and Arabs to become a vibrant and colorful society.

If they don't do it, America should bomb them to stone age for not enjoying the beauty of the Multi Racial society.
I've been all over the world, both for pleasure and business, and there is no place...none...with more legal equality, personal autonomy, economic opportunity, social mobility, or creativity than this one. Is it perfect? No, it isn't, but there is no comparison with the countries you mentioned. In terms of their economies and intellectual achievements alone, they are pretty good at copying the ideas generated here, but that's about the extent of it.

Kardu
23-03-15, 16:41
Angela, I don;t need conspiracy theories to see what's going on. You waste that cheap leftist trick to silence an opponent with me.

Like our friend LeBrok, I also observe trends and this one is strikingly reminiscent of USSR internal policy ('beauty' of which I personally experienced) i.e. destroying national identities, prohibiting education in other languages than Russian, rewriting history, constant communist brainwashing starting at age of 3, relocating populations to cut roots with their homelands. Ultimate goal was to forge a single new entity: Soviet People, zombified flock of sheep readily obeying their Party masters.

What you propose is just the same, albeit seemingly softer, totalitarian nevertheless.

giuseppe rossi
23-03-15, 16:45
I've been all over the world, both for pleasure and business, and there is no place...none...with more legal equality, personal autonomy, economic opportunity, social mobility, or creativity than this one. Is it perfect? No, it isn't, but there is no comparison with the countries you mentioned. In terms of their economies and intellectual achievements alone, theoy are pretty good at copying the ideas generated here, but that's about the extent of it.

Japanese and Koreans have been the most creative people around since the '80s.

Growing up without their technology, animes and mangas, would have been a nightmare for me.

LeBrok
23-03-15, 16:57
Angela, I don;t need conspiracy theories to see what's going on. You waste that cheap leftist trick to silence an opponent with me.

Like our friend LeBrok, I also observe trends and this one is strikingly reminiscent of USSR internal policy ('beauty' of which I personally experienced) i.e. destroying national identities, prohibiting education in other languages than Russian, rewriting history, constant communist brainwashing starting at age of 3, relocating populations to cut roots with their homelands. Ultimate goal was to forge a single new entity: Soviet People, zombified flock of sheep readily obeying their Party masters.

What you propose is just the same, albeit seemingly softer, totalitarian nevertheless.

In this case I have no idea how could you connect all the totalitarian enslavement of USSR, you mentioned above, with mine libertarian inclinations of freedom of personal choices, which includes marring whoever you want.

One the record, admit that you are against freedom to marry a partner of your choice!

Kardu
23-03-15, 17:19
In this case I have no idea how could you connect all the totalitarian enslavement of USSR, you mentioned above, with mine libertarian inclinations of freedom of personal choices, which includes marring whoever you want.

One the record, admit that you are against freedom to marry a partner of your choice!

Because what you propose is to do the same but in a sneaky, subversive way.

I am for liberty but also for responsibility and loyalty to one's own group and its interests. But I dont expect someone without roots to understand my point.

Angela
23-03-15, 17:23
Japanese and Koreans have been the most creative people around since the '80s.

Growing up without their technology, animes and mangas, would have been a nightmare for me.

You are sadly misinformed. All of that technology was developed from ideas created in the West. It's the difference between being a mathematician and being a line engineer. Did you ever hear of Alan Turing? He was a homosexual, by the way. How many Nobel prizes in the pure sciences or mathematics have been won by the Chinese and Koreans? Don't bother looking it up...zero. The Japanese have some, but they're still mostly from derivative endeavors from what my brother tells me. They're not innovators...whether it's genetics or their culture, I don't know, but it's a fact.

Ed. Honestly, anime and ganga...that's your definition of a major creative contribution to world culture?

How old are you guys, anyway? Things are finally starting to come into focus.:smile:

LeBrok
23-03-15, 17:30
Because what you propose is to do the same but in a sneaky, subversive way. To make it clear. Are you against arranged marriages, and for freedom to chose your own spouse?
Be clear.


I am for liberty but also for responsibility and loyalty to one's own group and its interests. But I dont expect someone without roots to understand my point. Good, you are free to make this choice. Just remember, you should also respect and let others to make their own. That's all it is, freedom, equality and inclusiveness. No agenda, no forcing, no mind control.

Angela
23-03-15, 17:49
Angela, I don;t need conspiracy theories to see what's going on. You waste that cheap leftist trick to silence an opponent with me.

Like our friend LeBrok, I also observe trends and this one is strikingly reminiscent of USSR internal policy ('beauty' of which I personally experienced) i.e. destroying national identities, prohibiting education in other languages than Russian, rewriting history, constant communist brainwashing starting at age of 3, relocating populations to cut roots with their homelands. Ultimate goal was to forge a single new entity: Soviet People, zombified flock of sheep readily obeying their Party masters.

What you propose is just the same, albeit seemingly softer, totalitarian nevertheless.

I'm far from being a leftist. Indeed, those of my ancestors who were anarchists and Communists would no doubt disown me if they could. (The living ones just yell at me.:grin: ) No one is attempting to silence you. We're attempting to get a reasoned, logical argument out of you.

As per one of your responses to LeBrok, there is no totalitarian control in the U.S. about these matters. There is freedom for everybody to express themselves, even idiots.

I will repeat, were the women of ancient Greece, the Gracchi, the rebels in medieval England, and the philosophers of the Enlightenment also brainwashed by this vast, leftist conspiracy? How? Were Communists transported back in time to sow their dastardly ideas?

Look, I get it that the Soviet Union treated its ethnic minorities terribly and that this influences how people from that background view the world. However, that has nothing to do with the humane and "liberal", in the classical 18th century sense, philosophy and world view that developed in the west. I'm a first generation "American", born in Italy. I vote in U.S. elections, and actively participate in American culture. In my dealings with "Americans" and American culture, I use English. At the same time, I watch Italian television, and read Italian journals and books, and occasionally, if I can find someone who speaks Italian, I speak Italian with them. I'm perfectly free to practice Roman Catholicism, just as my Baptist neighbors or Jewish neighbors or Buddhist neighbors or Hindu or Muslim neighbors are free to practice their religions. Nobody cares as long as you don't bother anyone else or try to impose your views on anyone else or pose a security or health risk. If I choose to "inmarry", as I did, that's fine. If my children choose not to, as is probably likely, that is also fine. There is no compulsion. Most people love it that there are different cultures represented here. They happily go to Cinco de Mayo celebrations even if they're not Mexican, to San Gennaro and similar Italian festivals even if they're not Italian, and I assure you that all those people celebrating St. Patrick's Day in New York on March 17th were not Irish.

Really, it's all good.:smile:

Ed.It's true, of course, that the situation involving African Americans needs to be improved, but with improved education and good will on all sides, I am cautiously optimistic about the future.

epoch
23-03-15, 18:35
I will repeat, were the women of ancient Greece, the Gracchi, the rebels in medieval England, and the philosophers of the Enlightenment also brainwashed by this vast, leftist conspiracy? How? Were Communists transported back in time to sow their dastardly ideas?


Two things. Firstly, a lot of these ideas, especially Enlightenment ideas, stem from a heretical branch of Christianity, that tried to bring about the Kingdom of God and salvation of mankind in this world and age. British filosopher John Gray wrote an excellent book about that relationship called Black Mass: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mass:_Apocalyptic_Religion_and_the_Death_of_ Utopia

Marxism itself is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment. So the fact that you found parallels in history doesn't disprove anything.

Secondly there absolutely is a thing called Cultural Marxism, which has its deep roots in the sixties. The university leftists of the sixties were quite fond of people like Herbert Marcuse. Now he thought the working class sold out and focused on "non-integrated forces of minorities, outsiders, and radical intelligentsia attempting to nourish oppositional thought and behavior through promoting radical thinking and opposition", as wikepedia states it. Since large parts the culture of the sixties are basically becoming mainstream culture nowadays you have your chain of heritage connected to cultural marxists.

Thirdly, these new cultural taboos are not enforced by propaganda or anything, but by shaming the persons that don't abide to it. Take a certain Rosetta scientists shirt as a perfect example of how it works.

Kardu
23-03-15, 18:40
Angela, please, don't hand me over that propaganda pamphlet :) I've been in the States, I follow American news from left and right and have a pretty good picture of what is going on there.
That progressive narrative just makes me lough.
Non me ne frego, the Nature will reverse the tide when the time comes. ;) Ho finito qui.

Kardu
23-03-15, 18:43
To make it clear. Are you against arranged marriages, and for freedom to chose your own spouse?
Be clear.

Good, you are free to make this choice. Just remember, you should also respect and let others to make their own. That's all it is, freedom, equality and inclusiveness. No agenda, no forcing, no mind control.
And who are you to force on others so called equality and inclusiveness?

1. I am against arranged marriages
2. responsible member of a group should make his choices according to wellbeing of the whole group, not following his selfish whims. Else he is out.

epoch
23-03-15, 18:45
I'm already feeling at ease with all the races and most cultures on this planet.

Boy, have I met a lot of people saying that. It all works fine as long as relations are superfluous. However, most culture of the world consider "freedom to marry a partner of your choice" (Your words) a travesty and an example of western pervertedness and you just made clear you consider that freedom very important.


Run small 8% intermarriage per generation in Vancouver (cosmopolitan city) through a formula and tell us how many years passes till 90% saturation.

Is that with of without taking into consideration that most western societies are getting less and less children, far below sustaining level?

Angela
23-03-15, 19:45
And who are you to force on others so called equality and inclusiveness?

1. I am against arranged marriages
2. responsible member of a group should make his choices according to wellbeing of the whole group, not following his selfish whims. Else he is out.

Who said anyone is forcing it on you?

So, you would ostracize someone of your "group" who married "out"? You wouldn't be the first group to do that. It can work, too, especially if you live in some isolated enclave.

You're probably not aware of it, but American Ashkenazi Jews used to "sit shiva" (mourn as if dead) for members of their families who married "out". I had a friend whose family did that.

They seemed to have forgotten all about "The story of Ruth":
"Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me. When Naomi saw that she was steadfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her. (KJV 1:16-18)"
Ruth turned out to be King David's grandmother. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/smile.gif

It didn't do much good. Today, 50% of Jews marry out, although in some proportion of those marriages conversion to Judaism is involved.

See, that's the nature of a free society. When people go to school together, play on sports teams together, work together, the "other" stops seeming so foreign, and propinquity takes its course. That's not to say that I don't think that the more alike two people are, the more likely that the marriage will be a success. I'm just stating the realities of the situation.

The only way you can stop it is to live in some isolated enclave. The Caucasus mountains might be a good bet. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/grin.png

Well, the Amish have managed it, but that's because religion is a powerful motivator, and they live lives almost totally isolated from the modern world...no electricity, no cars, no TV, no radio or modern music, going to school only with other Amish children usually, and their parents pull them out of school as soon as it's legally permissible.

They're perfectly free to live that way, of course, but the number of converts to their way of life is ZERO.

LeBrok
23-03-15, 19:51
And who are you to force on others so called equality and inclusiveness?

1. I am against arranged marriages Ha, got ya, you Leftist Liberalist.


2. responsible member of a group should make his choices according to wellbeing of the whole group, not following his selfish whims. Else he is out. Oh, my group is great, no domestic war, good level of living, and cherishing our Freedoms. How is Conservative Georgia doing?

Kardu
23-03-15, 19:53
"See, that's the nature of a free society. When people go to school together, play on sports teams together, work together, the "other" stops seeming so foreign, and propinquity takes its course."

Yeah, that's why American public schools are so much success :D :D

Aberdeen
23-03-15, 19:57
What education has to do with it? Unless you mean some liberal agenda education :)
The most racist persons in history were very educated folks.

I don't really believe those 'facts' which mostly stem from biased sources.

Preaching 'tolerance' usually is a subversive way to undermine targeted group's identity and security.

'Humanity' is a social construct.

"Catholic" and "Orthodox" are also social constructs. And your point is what, exactly?

Kardu
23-03-15, 19:57
Ha, got ya, you Leftist Liberalist.

Oh, my group is great, no domestic war, good level of living, and cherishing our Freedoms. How is Conservative Georgia doing?

lol, I see you are burning from desire to pigeonhole me so I'll save the trouble for you. I've done some political assessment tests and they agree that I am a Libertarian Non-Interventionist Nativist Traditionalist :D happy now?

Kardu
23-03-15, 19:58
"Catholic" and "Orthodox" are also social constructs. And your point is what, exactly?

To see my point have a look on what I replied with that.

Aberdeen
23-03-15, 20:05
Two things. Firstly, a lot of these ideas, especially Enlightenment ideas, stem from a heretical branch of Christianity, that tried to bring about the Kingdom of God and salvation of mankind in this world and age. British filosopher John Gray wrote an excellent book about that relationship called Black Mass: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mass:_Apocalyptic_Religion_and_the_Death_of_ Utopia

Marxism itself is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment. So the fact that you found parallels in history doesn't disprove anything.

Secondly there absolutely is a thing called Cultural Marxism, which has its deep roots in the sixties. The university leftists of the sixties were quite fond of people like Herbert Marcuse. Now he thought the working class sold out and focused on "non-integrated forces of minorities, outsiders, and radical intelligentsia attempting to nourish oppositional thought and behavior through promoting radical thinking and opposition", as wikepedia states it. Since large parts the culture of the sixties are basically becoming mainstream culture nowadays you have your chain of heritage connected to cultural marxists.

Thirdly, these new cultural taboos are not enforced by propaganda or anything, but by shaming the persons that don't abide to it. Take a certain Rosetta scientists shirt as a perfect example of how it works.

Yes, it's too bad we don't still live in the Dark Ages, when the Church had a monopoly on education, where serfs and women knew their place and where anyone who failed to be sufficiently obedient to their feudal overlord could be hanged, drawn and quartered. That evil phenomenon known as the Enlightenment really ruined things. But what about those ancient pre-christian cultures such as the pagan Celts where women had most of the same legal, economic and social rights as men? I guess they must have been time travelling cultural marxists.

Angela
23-03-15, 20:43
Angela, please, don't hand me over that propaganda pamphlet :) I've been in the States, I follow American news from left and right and have a pretty good picture of what is going on there.
That progressive narrative just makes me lough.
Non me ne frego, the Nature will reverse the tide when the time comes. ;) Ho finito qui.

Foreigners understand as little of the U.S. as Americans understand of other countries. Perhaps that's only to be expected.


Kardu: Yeah, that's why American public schools are so much success.

Even if I accepted your implication, what, pray tell, does that have to do with the fact that propinquity leads to intermarriage? Could we please follow the rules of logic? Does anyone teach them anymore?


Epoch: Two things. Firstly, a lot of these ideas, especially Enlightenment ideas, stem from a heretical branch of Christianity, that tried to bring about the Kingdom of God and salvation of mankind in this world and age. British filosopher John Gray wrote an excellent book about that relationship called Black Mass: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_M...eath_of_Utopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mass:_Apocalyptic_Religion_and_the_Death_of_ Utopia)

Were ancient Greek women and the Gracchi also heretical Christians? I refuse to accept that you believe this...uh...silliness.



Epoch: However, most culture of the world consider "freedom to marry a partner of your choice" (Your words) a travesty and an example of western pervertedness and you just made clear you consider that freedom very important.

Actually they weren't my words, but what the heck! :smile:Why would I care what "most cultures" of the world think, especially when so many of the worst offenders in terms of women's issues are cultures where ignorance, poverty, disease and hunger are rampant? Not to mention violence both internally and externally with their "neighbors"? How is their world view working for them? The only exception might be some East Asian countries, and they are stupefyingly and stiflingly conformist. Why would I want to live in such places?

As to people who move to western democracies and then complain about the values of the host country, I have a simple solution for them...go back home. When my family and I moved to the U.S. we accepted that it was incumbent on us to adjust, not that the U.S. would change to accommodate us. *

*Ed. Well, my father had some difficulty letting go of some of his more traditional ideas about behavior, but he was thirty seven when he came to this country. Even then, he didn't want to impose his own views on others...he was just upset that they were infecting his children. Of course, for him as for anyone else, if you don't want your children to pick up modern western values, don't move to a modern, western country.

You may not credit it, but I've been a very traditional and strict mother myself, to the extent that I could be in twenty-first century America. It's just that reality is reality and we have to all deal with it.

epoch
23-03-15, 21:01
Yes, it's too bad we don't still live in the Dark Ages, when the Church had a monopoly on education, where serfs and women knew their place and where anyone who failed to be sufficiently obedient to their feudal overlord could be hanged, drawn and quartered. That evil phenomenon known as the Enlightenment really ruined things.

That was not a very enlightened (pun intended) response, to be sure. Where to start?

First, the enlightenment did not end what is commonly known as "the Dark Ages" [1]. It succeeded a period of modernity, in which economic wealth grew enormously and the framework for the modern age was laid (e.g. statehood as by Westphalian peace treaty). The proponents of the French revolution prided themselves with a law against serfdom while ignoring the fact that the practice was non-existent for centuries by then.

Second, the idea that anyone who failed to be sufficiently obedient to their feudal overlord could be hanged, drawn and quartered is blatantly untrue in the centuries directly before the Enlightenment, and it was also untrue in most of the time in the Middle Ages, in most of Europe, even if these things did happen.


But what about those ancient pre-christian cultures such as the pagan Celts where women had most of the same legal, economic and social rights as men?

Imād Ad-Din was deeply disgusted by the liberties the wives of the crusaders had. Just to put things in perspective.


I guess they must have been time travelling cultural marxists.

We've already discussed that.

[1] The "Dark Ages" can mean the entire Middle Age period, or it can mean the period directly after the collaps of the Roman Empire. I can't really make out which you meant.

Kardu
23-03-15, 21:01
Even if I accepted your implication, what, pray tell, does that have to do with the fact that propinquity leads to intermarriage? Could we please follow the rules of logic? Does anyone teach them anymore?

As to people who move to western democracies and then complain about the values of the host country, I have a simple solution for them...go back home.





:) :) how many mixed African American-Latino couples do you know who ended to together due to propinquity at school?

In every European country I lived I encountered and befriended lot of local people who think like me.

epoch
23-03-15, 21:21
Were ancient Greek women and the Gracchi also heretical Christians? I refuse to accept that you believe this...uh...silliness.

Read the book, you'll find it at least an entertaining exercise. In it you'll find a lovely allegory by Schopenhauer on Kant and the Enlightenment, in which Kant dances with a masked beauty all night at a masked ball only to find at the end of the evening, when she reveals herself, that she is his own wife. The wife standing for Christianity.


Actually they weren't my words, but what the heck! :smile:

Very true. The response obviously was to LeBrok, but who am I to refuse you to respond to it? ;)


Why would I care what "most cultures" of the world think, especially when so many of the worst offenders in terms of women's issues are cultures where ignorance, poverty, disease and hunger are rampant? Not to mention violence both internally and externally with their "neighbors"? How is their world view working for them? The only exception might be some East Asian countries, and they are stupefyingly and stiflingly conformist. Why would I want to live in such places?

However, it was a remark specifically aimed at something LeBrok stated. I think we do not disagree. At least not here.


As to people who move to western democracies and then complain about the values of the host country, I have a simple solution for them...go back home. When my family and I moved to the U.S. we accepted that it was incumbent on us to adjust, not that the U.S. would change to accommodate us. *

*Ed. Well, my father had some difficulty letting go of some of his more traditional ideas about behavior, but he was thirty seven when he came to this country. Even then, he didn't want to impose his own views on others...he was just upset that they were infecting his children. Of course, for him as for anyone else, if you don't want your children to pick up modern western values, don't move to a modern, western country.

You may not credit it, but I've been a very traditional and strict mother myself, to the extent that I could be in twenty-first century America. It's just that reality is reality and we have to all deal with it.

Angela
23-03-15, 22:04
:) :) how many mixed African American-Latino couples do you know who ended to together due to propinquity at school?

In every European country I lived I encountered and befriended lot of local people who think like me.

Why would I mislead you or anybody else about such things? It's not only school, although many such matches used to be made at Catholic schools, especially where Puerto Ricans are concerned. It's also work related. I've worked with professionals who were European American, Chinese American, South Asian American, Black American, you name it. Given that I live and practiced in New York, lots and lots of Jewish Americans. I think all my doctors are either Jewish or Italian American. :smile: ( I really didn't do any of this deliberately, or at least it wasn't conscious.) In terms of employees the only things I've ever demanded are competence and hard work and a professional attitude.

As to your question, let's see, one of my cousins married a Cuban-American girl he met in a Catholic high school in Miami. She doesn't look very "mixed" though, so perhaps she doesn't count? One of my secretaries was Puerto Rican, and she married an Irish boy (he became a cop) she met at a high school dance. My neighbor up the block is half Puerto Rican and half Irish and his wife is Irish/German/Polish American...lovely couple. I don't know how they met. My next door neighbor for years was also Cuban American. His wife was Peruvian and Venezuelan. Their son, whom I consider a sort of surrogate son of mine, now finishing his training in neurosurgery, is engaged to an Irish/Italian girl he met at university. A friend of my son's, a computer science type, is Korean American (and a devout born again type Protestant Christian...only in America. :grin:). He's living with a girl who is sort of Euro-mutt. Another friend of my son's, an Indian boy just graduating from law school, is going through a drama because he is in love with another Euro mutt sort of American girl, and his family is demanding that he give her up. They're tearing him in two. It's very sad, as from what I can tell she's a very nice girl and really cares about him, probably enough to convert if that's what would satisfy them. Should I go on?

Don't misunderstand me...this isn't the majority of marriages, but they exist, and in about the numbers quoted in the Pew Poll, which is a highly respected organization. You also have to factor in that I live in a very cosmopolitan, educated part of the country. It's not the same in certain parts of the country. Heck, when I was first working, some bozo from the south, a "big man" in the client company, got a little tipsy and told me that he had never met a "white woman" like me, by which he meant dark haired and dark eyed, Mediterranean, and therefore a little "exotic". (A total jerk, but I couldn't throw the beer in his face because he was the client.:annoyed: )

It's true that intermarriage with African Americans is more rare, especially for white Americans. Only one such couple is part of my personal circle of acquaintance. They're both lawyers, and it's a second marriage for both of them. I don't doubt that it will become more common in the future. Certainly, the interaction is there. One of my closest friends is a Jamaican who moved to the U.S. as a teenager. She's a social worker I met through work.

I'm leaving out the inter-ethnic marriages among European-Americans, because that includes almost everybody. I am one of twenty-four first cousins, and we're of an older generation, and yet only four of us married people of Italian descent. I've raised my children very "Italian", with yearly trips to Italy, and yet neither one has yet brought home someone of 100% Italian descent, although my son has introduced me to some half-Italians. My daughter seems to specialize in Irish American or Irish/German football players, (or maybe they choose her?)although she once went against type and dated a Persian Jewish boy who was in her high school. It didn't last more than a few weeks, but she went to his prom with him. He was a nice boy, but he wasn't her type.

This is just the way that it is. It used to be determined by religion...Catholics found it easier to marry Catholics, but as religion has become less important, the circle has broadened so to speak. I know a whole cadre of Italian-American professional women married to Jews, for instance.

As I said, this isn't the country for people who find this sort of dating and marrying offensive.

Aberdeen
23-03-15, 22:28
That was not a very enlightened (pun intended) response, to be sure. Where to start?

First, the enlightenment did not end what is commonly known as "the Dark Ages" [1]. It succeeded a period of modernity, in which economic wealth grew enormously and the framework for the modern age was laid (e.g. statehood as by Westphalian peace treaty). The proponents of the French revolution prided themselves with a law against serfdom while ignoring the fact that the practice was non-existent for centuries by then.

Second, the idea that anyone who failed to be sufficiently obedient to their feudal overlord could be hanged, drawn and quartered is blatantly untrue in the centuries directly before the Enlightenment, and it was also untrue in most of the time in the Middle Ages, in most of Europe, even if these things did happen.



Imād Ad-Din was deeply disgusted by the liberties the wives of the crusaders had. Just to put things in perspective.



We've already discussed that.

[1] The "Dark Ages" can mean the entire Middle Age period, or it can mean the period directly after the collaps of the Roman Empire. I can't really make out which you meant.

Obviously, I was using the term "Dark Ages" in its original sense, i.e., from the fall of the western Roman Empire until the beginning of the Italian Renaissance in the 14th century, which is generally regarded as the beginning of the Enlightenment, so the Enlightenment that one of you was complaining about did in fact end the Dark Ages. And if you aren't aware of how brutally serfs and rebel knights were treated during the Medieval period, you need to do a bit of studying. But all this is getting a bit off topic. The important thing is that you haven't addressed in any way the one real point I made in with all my sarcasm. And that is that the kind of christian conservative mindset you seem to be promoting and which produces the kind of mindset that disapproves of intermarriage is a kind of cultural relativism, in that it reflects a social construct created in a specific time and place and not some kind of universal truth. Groups such as the ancient Celts wouldn't have understood such a mindset.

Kardu
23-03-15, 22:34
Angela, I specifically asked about intermarriage between African Americans and Latinos.

Maleth
23-03-15, 22:35
:grin: enjoy


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A93f_PVo5fU

epoch
23-03-15, 22:36
A friend of my son's, a computer science type, is Korean American (and a devout born again type Protestant Christian...only in America. :grin:).

About a quarter of Southern Korea is, nowadays. EDIT: A fifth of South-Korea is protestant.


Another friend of my son's, an Indian boy just graduating from law school, is going through a drama because he is in love with another Euro mutt sort of American girl, and his family is demanding that he give her up. They're tearing him in two.

And this is exactly what I referred to in my answer to LeBrok.


It's very sad, as from what I can tell she's a very nice girl and really cares about him, probably enough to convert if that's what would satisfy them.

And that is exactly what will be the cause for trouble. See, if we all mix, we simply have to convert to whatever finds it inexcusable to convert him- or herself.


I've raised my children very "Italian", with yearly trips to Italy..

Why? It is of no use, since you are an American. Not to insult or anything, but as you state yourself:


As I said, this isn't the country for people who find this sort of dating and marrying offensive.

It seems so contradictory to laud the American melting pot and at the same time raise your children very Italian.

epoch
23-03-15, 22:38
Furthermore, I am european. For the most of the trip that modern paleogenetics took us I find that I am very, very much part of the original population of this continent. Every time the Americans and Canadians sing praise of the melting pot I wonder: Do the Indians in your countries sing that same praise? I very much doubt it.

epoch
23-03-15, 22:54
Obviously, I was using the term "Dark Ages" in its original sense, i.e., from the fall of the western Roman Empire until the beginning of the Italian Renaissance in the 14th century, which is generally regarded as the beginning of the Enlightenment

No its not generally regarded as the beginning of the Enlightenment. The age of reason, the Enlightenment is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment


so the Enlightenment that one of you was complaining about did in fact end the Dark Ages. And if you aren't aware of how brutally serfs and rebel knights were treated during the Medieval period, you need to do a bit of studying.

I did. And they were at times, especially during the Banal revolution which was indeed as cruel as you describe. But for other large amounts of times in large parts it wasn't quite like that. Serfdom often was a required service. In the high middle ages you could have farmers that were half-free living on a manor and thus being required to work for their lord while they owned the commons as a village which was given out as a fief to that same lord. Disputes in such a situation were settled.


But all this is getting a bit off topic. The important thing is that you haven't addressed in any way the one real point I made in with all my sarcasm. And that is that the kind of christian conservative mindset you seem to be promoting and which produces the kind of mindset that disapproves of intermarriage is a kind of cultural relativism, in that it reflects a social construct created in a specific time and place and not some kind of universal truth. Groups such as the ancient Celts wouldn't have understood such a mindset.

Uhm. You know how ancient Celts think? That's quite remarkable! PS: I think I made *my* point very clear.

Melancon
24-03-15, 00:04
Furthermore, I am european. For the most of the trip that modern paleogenetics took us I find that I am very, very much part of the original population of this continent. Every time the Americans and Canadians sing praise of the melting pot I wonder: Do the Indians in your countries sing that same praise? I very much doubt it.I'm not European but as an American of Cajun French ancestry I completely agree. lmao

We Acadian-French colonists never wanted to be part of the USA either; if you recall our history we were deported to Louisiana by the British, and then sold to the new USA by Napoleon Bonaparte with the Louisiana purchase.

Angela
24-03-15, 00:47
Angela, I specifically asked about intermarriage between African Americans and Latinos.

I misunderstood. Of course it happens. My husband's office manager is Puerto Rican and she married an African American. A celebrity example is Jennifer Lopez, who had a lot of relationships with African American men. Do I need to list all the instances of which I'm aware? As the statistics I posted above indicated, intermarriage with African Americans lags behind intermarriages between other groups. From my personal experience I'd say that "Latino" families are happier if their children marry whites than if they marry African Americans, but then they come from very oppressive, colonialist, racist cultures.

With Latinos it's also complicated because many of them are tri-racial. That's the case with Puerto Ricans, for example. They have Spanish, Amerindian and SSA ancestry. The percentages can differ by individual. You can have "white" looking Puerto Ricans, more "mixed" looking Puerto Ricans, and more "black" looking Puerto Ricans. Dominicans the same, although the ones here in New York, at least, seem to have more SSA. We don't have all that many Mexicans. I don't know what the story is with them in the southwest or California from personal experience. Here on the east coast we got a lot of Central American refugees in the last twenty years, but they're relative newcomers so they sort of keep more apart.

I don't know what to tell you...people mix here and in other urban, cosmopolitan areas...maybe in Louisiana or Arkansas they don't, but they mix here, and also as per LeBrok's data, in areas like Vancouver, apparently. However, as I pointed out, it's not the majority of the marriages by any means even here. The vast majority of the people in my circle of acquaintance still marry within the major groupings. I listed the national statistics above. The point is that it is a growing percentage, and people aren't losing sleep over it. As the statistics showed, over 70% of the American people have no problem with inter-racial marriage, much less inter-ethnic marriage. People would think you're a nut job if you went around saying that the Italians should only marry Italians, or the Irish the Irish, or whatever. I don't understand why you guys are so worked up about it. So long as no one forces you to do it, what business is it of yours? You know what don't answer that...I probably wouldn't like the answer. Let's just say that even if you are worked up about it, it's irrelevant, because you're not going to stop it.

Jeb Bush, brother of George Bush, and Republican candidate for President, his Hispanic wife Colomba and his son. (You just don't get any more "white bread", as we say, than the Bush family.)

http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/13364505.jpg

Another family picture:
http://www.floridagovernorsmansion.com/var/dms/storage/images/media/governor_s_mansion/the_bush_family_ds/243326-1-eng-US/the_bush_family_ds_large.gif

John McCain...past Republican candidate and his family, including his adopted daughter:
http://abandoned-orphaned.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/19/mccain_family_2.jpg

LeBrok
24-03-15, 00:47
Boy, have I met a lot of people saying that. It all works fine as long as relations are superfluous. However, most culture of the world consider "freedom to marry a partner of your choice" (Your words) a travesty and an example of western pervertedness and you just made clear you consider that freedom very important. 200 years ago in Europe all marriages were forced, now almost none. There is a reason to suspect, that in the future when all world will develop economically, and liberalize at same time, the arranged marriages will be a thing of the past.

Even in such conservative country as India, the trend goes into love marriages, also called Self-Arranged. Imagine that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage_in_the_Indian_subcontinent



Is that with of without taking into consideration that most western societies are getting less and less children, far below sustaining level? Will this stop mixed marriages?

Fertility rate drops everywhere these days. Look at Bangladesh stats. It dropped to 2.10 from 5.24 during last 30 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage_in_the_Indian_subcontinent

Fire Haired14
24-03-15, 01:15
Angela, those autosomal components you mention for Georgians are from different subgroups of the same race.

You're are assuming this pure (Eurpoid)race exists without any research. I'm not saying you do this but too many people today assume that they can figure out ancient origins by looking at modern cultures and ethnic groups.

The latest academic research with dozens of ancient genomes suggest Middle easterns and Europeans trace their ancestry to 3 distinct stone age populations named: WHG, ANE, and Basal Eurasian. WHG and ANE are closely related, but Basal Eurasian is totally differnt. WHG-ANE are closer to East Asians than they're to Basal Eurasian.


And again, you all try to hide/ignore the fact that most of the old time race mixing was due to conquest, violence and rape.

She doesn't have the agenda you think she does. Violence and rape did cause admixture in ancient times but you can't assume that's always how it happened.

Fire Haired14
24-03-15, 01:24
And who are you to force on others so called equality and inclusiveness?

1. I am against arranged marriages
2. responsible member of a group should make his choices according to wellbeing of the whole group, not following his selfish whims. Else he is out.

I think I know what you're getting at and I agree: Original human society was of small tribes and most similar to modern families. So everything everyone does makes an affect on everyone. There are some who think freedom means do whatever the heck you want, and if it's disruptive to society do it behind closed doors. They'd be fine with people raping monkeys, as long as it was behind closed doors, and they don't even consider social morality. This goes against some of the most basic elements of making a human and human society.

Fire Haired14
24-03-15, 01:36
Who said anyone is forcing it on you?

So, you would ostracize someone of your "group" who married "out"? You wouldn't be the first group to do that. It can work, too, especially if you live in some isolated enclave.

You're probably not aware of it, but American Ashkenazi Jews used to "sit shiva" (mourn as if dead) for members of their families who married "out". I had a friend whose family did that.

European Jews genetically fit right in the east Mediterranean and almost in the Near east, even though they've been minorities in Europe since before the Middle ages. You've got to respect how true to tradition they've been.

There is an aspect of healthy love for family and tradition to nativism and it should not be assumed to be raciest. Anyone who grew an emotional bond to their town, sports team, school, etc. can understand this.

Aberdeen
24-03-15, 01:36
No its not generally regarded as the beginning of the Enlightenment. The age of reason, the Enlightenment is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment



I did. And they were at times, especially during the Banal revolution which was indeed as cruel as you describe. But for other large amounts of times in large parts it wasn't quite like that. Serfdom often was a required service. In the high middle ages you could have farmers that were half-free living on a manor and thus being required to work for their lord while they owned the commons as a village which was given out as a fief to that same lord. Disputes in such a situation were settled.



Uhm. You know how ancient Celts think? That's quite remarkable! PS: I think I made *my* point very clear.

How nice to see that you consider Wikipedia to be the ultimate authority. And I do realize that the way certain terms are used changes over time and that instead of talking about the Enlightenment in terms of the initial burst of knowledge that transformed Europe some people now talk about "the Age of Enlightenment" and equate it with the Age of Reason. But by getting weirdly specific about such details after complaining about those nasty cultural marxists from the Enlightenment suggests to me that you have no arguments to support your hostility to racial intermarriage. And no, you haven't made any point clear.

Fire Haired14
24-03-15, 01:48
Yes, it's too bad we don't still live in the Dark Ages, when the Church had a monopoly on education, where serfs and women knew their place and where anyone who failed to be sufficiently obedient to their feudal overlord could be hanged, drawn and quartered. That evil phenomenon known as the Enlightenment really ruined things. But what about those ancient pre-christian cultures such as the pagan Celts where women had most of the same legal, economic and social rights as men? I guess they must have been time travelling cultural marxists.

You're assumption that conservative values can't exist in a tolerant society is totally incorrect.

The Celts were not a single ethnicity. There isn't nearly enough data on "Celtic"(which ones and what time period?) society to say they weren't sexiest. The picture of European history you're painting, that Christianity ruined things, clearly shows you're biased towards Christianity, because nothing in history is that simple.

Fire Haired14
24-03-15, 02:02
I'm not European but as an American of Cajun French ancestry I completely agree. lmao

We Acadian-French colonists never wanted to be part of the USA either; if you recall our history we were deported to Louisiana by the British, and then sold to the new USA by Napoleon Bonaparte with the Louisiana purchase.

You've been apart of the US for about 200 years, so you're defiantly American in identity unless you read history books.

Kardu
24-03-15, 02:19
Let's just say that even if you are worked up about it, it's irrelevant, because you're not going to stop it.


If activist interest groups could start it activist interest groups can stop it too ;)

Kardu
24-03-15, 02:25
You're are assuming this pure (Eurpoid)race exists without any research. I'm not saying you do this but too many people today assume that they can figure out ancient origins by looking at modern cultures and ethnic groups.

The latest academic research with dozens of ancient genomes suggest Middle easterns and Europeans trace their ancestry to 3 distinct stone age populations named: WHG, ANE, and Basal Eurasian. WHG and ANE are closely related, but Basal Eurasian is totally differnt. WHG-ANE are closer to East Asians than they're to Basal Eurasian.



She doesn't have the agenda you think she does. Violence and rape did cause admixture in ancient times but you can't assume that's always how it happened.

Were representatives of WHG, ANE, and Basal Eurasian anthropologically so different as to belong to different races?

Well, Angela can and does answer for herself :) Maybe she does not have an agenda and is just an idealist but she does share viewpoint of those who do have an agenda.

Can you give me a single example from remote history when admixture (particularly interracial) happened on a large scale without violence?

Fire Haired14
24-03-15, 02:59
Were representatives of WHG, ANE, and Basal Eurasian anthropologically so different as to belong to different races?

They were discovered using DNA. Personally I don't know anything about them anthropologically besides pigmentation. We can maybe find out what their distinct physical features were by looking at the bones of people from the same era and region as we get WHG and ANE DNA from(Basal Eurasian is a purely theoretical, but something similar defiantly existed in the ancient Middle East).

IMO, there's alot more physical variation in west Eurasians than in east Asians, and this might be because we're a mix of 3 very differnt ancient people. You can take two Scots from the exact same town with the same genetic makeup but they'll have totally differnt physical features, while east Asians seem to be much more uniform.

I'd rather call WHG, ANE, and BB "populations" than "races", not because I'm over politically correct, but because it's more accurate. Race implies totally distinct and pure.

But anyways if you're interested here's Loschbour who we base WHG on. He lived in Luxembourg 8,000 years ago.
http://www.lameuse.be/sites/default/files/imagecache/pagallery_450x300/2014/09/18/505257274_B973600377Z.1_20140918191216_000_GCN3574 8Q.2-0.jpg


Well, Angela can and does answer for herself :) Maybe she does not have an agenda and is just an idealist but she does share viewpoint of those who do have an agenda.

Can you give me a single example from remote history when admixture (particularly interracial) happened on a large scale without violence?

I have the same viewpoints as people who have biased agendas but that doesn't mean I have one. IMO, the same goes for Angela. I can't give an example but I'm not a historian.

Aberdeen
24-03-15, 03:20
You're assumption that conservative values can't exist in a tolerant society is totally incorrect.

The Celts were not a single ethnicity. There isn't nearly enough data on "Celtic"(which ones and what time period?) society to say they weren't sexiest. The picture of European history you're painting, that Christianity ruined things, clearly shows you're biased towards Christianity, because nothing in history is that simple.

Please, take out that prejudice angry black matter in your brain that activates whenever you read a comment of mine.

I'd be astonished by your lack of historical knowledge if I didn't realize how young you are. Read what the Greeks and Romans had to say about the various Celtic tribes and learn something about Brehon Law. Even through those imperfect mirrors we can see that the Celtic attitude to gender was very different from the Roman approach that was adopted by the christians and spread around various European cultures, altering the social dynamic and reducing the rights of women not only among the Celts but also among the Germans and Scandinavians. My point is that there is nothing "normal" or standard about extremes of patriarchy as practices by the Greeks, the Romans and the church militant. The Egyptians and Etruscans certainly didn't treat women as chattel. So modern pushback against patriarchy isn't part of some nefarious conspiracy but merely an attempt to return society to a more natural state of affairs.

Angela
24-03-15, 04:02
Furthermore, I am european. For the most of the trip that modern paleogenetics took us I find that I am very, very much part of the original population of this continent. Every time the Americans and Canadians sing praise of the melting pot I wonder: Do the Indians in your countries sing that same praise? I very much doubt it.

What does that have to do with the topic under discussion, i.e. the rise of inter-racial marriage in the U.S? Also, although I do think that the tolerance for other groups which is a hallmark of life in North America is admirable, my point has been that certain trends can be found in this society. I haven't yet seen anyone proffer any evidence to the contrary.


Epoch:And this is exactly what I referred to in my answer to LeBrok.

I'm sorry. I'm not following you here. You find it admirable that these Hindu parents are causing their son to have a nervous breakdown because they can't bear the thought of having a non-Indian daughter-in-law, even though she's a lovely, sweet, intelligent girl who seems to love their son enough that she is even willing to convert for him?

We have very different values. I am not saying that these young people are carving out the easiest path for themselves if they go forward, but from a parent's point of view why would you cause a child such anguish by making him choose? You can and should counsel your children to be cautious, to consider the consequences and strains of a marriage between people of such different cultures, but at the end of the day, they must make their own decision. I wouldn't risk losing my child over this and nor would I wish to cause him such suffering. If they love each other enough, they will make it work. (I should add that if my child gave any indication that he or she was thinking of converting to a sect of any religion which would deny human rights to women or would advocate violence or even intolerance against members of other religions, I would oppose it with any means at my disposal.)


Epoch: And that is exactly what will be the cause for trouble. See, if we all mix, we simply have to convert to whatever finds it inexcusable to convert him- or herself.

Again, I'm not sure where you are going with this. When people live only among their own "kind", these issues will not arise. If someone emigrates here, their children will encounter, on a daily basis when adult if not as a child, people from all sorts of backgrounds. These children might fall in love with someone of a different background. If religion is the difference, it can be resolved in a number of ways. Americans are much more religious than Europeans, but still, religion is not as important as it was even twenty-five years ago. For many young people, a religious ceremony is a nod to tradition, not a sacrament. So, they'll either have an "interfaith" ceremony, or a civil one. If religion is important to one of them but not to the other, the non-religious person will either convert or agree to have the children raised in the partner's faith. If both of them have strong, but different, religious beliefs, they usually don't make it to the altar. Sometimes there is heartbreak involved. What is your solution for that? A ban on all interfaith marriages as well as inter-racial marriages? This is a free society, so this is not an option.


Epoch: It seems so contradictory to laud the American melting pot and at the same time raise your children very Italian.

I raised my children Italian because that's what I am. I wouldn't have known how to raise them any other way. I identify as Italian. I read Italian books, watch Italian television, and listen to Italian music every day. I cook Italian, heck, one week back in Italy, where I go for at least a month each year and often more, and I'm even dreaming in Italian again. I am proud of my culture and heritage and I wanted my children to be proud of it too, and they are, but in ways that I will never be, they are American. That's the way it works...I know that it seems like a paradox, but precisely because it is so inclusive and so accepting of other cultures, it is very seductive, and it's very easy for people to be absorbed and for their ties to their ancestral cultures to loosen. I made my peace with it long ago. (Plus, you have to remember that most people are not like me...they are two, three, four or more generations removed from their emigrant roots. They don't speak the ancestral languages and barely know their ancestral towns.)

I was sort of kidding about sending my daughter to Italy to find a husband, you know. Sometimes my humor seems to miss the mark. Would it be nice to have Italian children in law...more comfortable, easier on some level? Yes, it would. It would also go some way toward alleviating my anxiety, because it would mean that they might be more likely to have the kind of family values which are so important to me, although even in Italy things have changed a great deal. However, that's probably not the way it's going to turn out. At the end of the day, it's not so important. What's important to me is that each of them finds someone who is kind and compassionate, has strong family values, is intelligent, hard working, has integrity, and most importantly, someone who loves and respects them and treats them well. If they can find mates like that, I'll be very happy.


Epoch:Read the book, you'll find it at least an entertaining exercise. In it you'll find a lovely allegory by Schopenhauer on Kant and the Enlightenment, in which Kant dances with a masked beauty all night at a masked ball only to find at the end of the evening, when she reveals herself, that she is his own wife. The wife standing for Christianity.

That lovely description has now convinced me to give it a look. However, you still haven't proved to me that the desire for autonomy and greater human rights on the part of the ancient Greek women of the Lysistrata or the Gracchi or any number of other examples I could cite have anything to do with some conspiracy against traditional Christian doctrine. No human being wants to be enslaved by another or oppressed by another unless such human being has been brainwashed, and no attempt to enslave or oppress or even limit the human rights and potential of another person or group should be permitted. To use Christianity to justify any such attitude or behavior is the ultimate heresy and blasphemy. No amount of circular arguing is going to convince me to the contrary, so perhaps we should leave it there.

Fire Haired14
24-03-15, 04:05
I'd be astonished by your lack of historical knowledge if I didn't realize how young you are. Read what the Greeks and Romans had to say about the various Celtic tribes and learn something about Brehon Law. Even through those imperfect mirrors we can see that the Celtic attitude to gender was very different from the Roman approach that was adopted by the christians and spread around various European cultures, altering the social dynamic and reducing the rights of women not only among the Celts but also among the Germans and Scandinavians. My point is that there is nothing "normal" or standard about extremes of patriarchy as practices by the Greeks, the Romans and the church militant. The Egyptians and Etruscans certainly didn't treat women as chattel. So modern pushback against patriarchy isn't part of some nefarious conspiracy but merely an attempt to return society to a more natural state of affairs.

It depends what you mean by discrimination of women. My definition is women have less freedoms and opportunities than men do. To many, every aspect of life literally has to be 50/50 for there to be gender equality. It's scientific fact men and women are very differnt biologically. IMO, instinctively they take differnt roles. All over the world we see this and I doubt it was any differnt for ancient Celtic-speakers. If in your opinion gender equality includes women taking "male roles" then you'll probably have a hard time finding a pre-modern non-western society that had gender equality.

Before awareness of female-oppression there was no measuring of gender equality and all this hype over genders, because gender roles was just one of those things everyone did like breathing.

I don't know enough about most of those people you mentioned to say anything about them on that subject. I doubt all the various differnt Celts over 100s of years had the same customs when it came to gender.

The sexually prude morals of pagan Germans and the praise classical writers(they had the same values) gave them isn't consistent with the idea this is a purely "Abrahamic" value like some say. Why are little boys scared of girls? Same reason we have morals about sexuality, it's human instinct. Some sex is dirty and can't fit socially(like a brother and sister), so it's immoral to us. This is something Seth MacFarlane refuses to acknowledge.

These Scandinavians didn't have many rights for women and were not Christian.
http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/ibn_fdln.shtml

I think you're wrongly putting all Celts, etc. into the same category.

Melancon
24-03-15, 05:28
You've been apart of the US for about 200 years, so you're defiantly American in identity unless you read history books.No we aren't. Our French culture is still alive but was not as vibrant as it was before WW2. I still speak French and I have relatives who still have Accordians and Violins and play Cajun music. I am actually one of the few Cajun French people here in Louisiana who are unmixed with immigrants. Some of my ancestors were indeed English immigrants who converted to Acadian culture and dropped English in favor of French, so I am not completely Cajun French; but I have more French ancestry than most anyone else here. I am also homogeneous like the Finnish and Polish. Also, it is against the law in the USA to discriminate against a person of Cajun French heritage.

Learn the history of Louisiana and the Louisiana purchase; Louisiana is very different from the rest of the USA. Before WWII; Louisiana was basically Quebec Jr.

My ancestors came from the most French parts of Louisiana, South-Central Louisiana, which is called Acadiana. (New Orleans and Baton Rouge ARE NOT considered part of Acadiana.)

7165

Melancon
24-03-15, 05:53
You've been apart of the US for about 200 years, so you're defiantly American in identity unless you read history books.Also, if you were to do a DNA test on people of Cajun French ancestry you would find we are more relative to the old population of France. Because we came from the Atlantic fringe of France; which has the oldest populations of French people. (mostly Celtic or pre-Basque)

French people in the East of France have more recent immigrants like German, Italian and Greek admixture. Cajuns and French Canadians are more related to Basque, Breton (from Brittany) Cornish and Welsh people.

Melancon
24-03-15, 07:10
They were discovered using DNA. Personally I don't know anything about them anthropologically besides pigmentation. We can maybe find out what their distinct physical features were by looking at the bones of people from the same era and region as we get WHG and ANE DNA from(Basal Eurasian is a purely theoretical, but something similar defiantly existed in the ancient Middle East).

IMO, there's alot more physical variation in west Eurasians than in east Asians, and this might be because we're a mix of 3 very differnt ancient people. You can take two Scots from the exact same town with the same genetic makeup but they'll have totally differnt physical features, while east Asians seem to be much more uniform.

I'd rather call WHG, ANE, and BB "populations" than "races", not because I'm over politically correct, but because it's more accurate. Race implies totally distinct and pure.

But anyways if you're interested here's Loschbour who we base WHG on. He lived in Luxembourg 8,000 years ago.
http://www.lameuse.be/sites/default/files/imagecache/pagallery_450x300/2014/09/18/505257274_B973600377Z.1_20140918191216_000_GCN3574 8Q.2-0.jpg

Hm, interesting. It seems I am 58.15402246 EEF; 29.18083928 WHG and 12.66513826 ANE.

epoch
24-03-15, 07:58
200 years ago in Europe all marriages were forced, now almost none. There is a reason to suspect, that in the future when all world will develop economically, and liberalize at same time, the arranged marriages will be a thing of the past.

That is absolutely not true. 200 years ago all marriages had to have the approval of the parents. However, it was forbidden by law in most countries by then to force your children to marry. From what I know in my part if Europa this was customary law - which was valid in court - for commoners at the end pf the middle ages. Nobility was exempt from that, which probably is what you are aiming at.


Will this stop mixed marriages?

Fertility rate drops everywhere these days. Look at Bangladesh stats. It dropped to 2.10 from 5.24 during last 30 years.

It will GREATLY influence the outcome of your mathematical routine, especially should interracial marriages be on one end of the bell curve. Not sure it is though, just mentioning that your prediction is not so valid.

LeBrok
24-03-15, 09:09
That is absolutely not true. 200 years ago all marriages had to have the approval of the parents. However, it was forbidden by law in most countries by then to force your children to marry. From what I know in my part if Europa this was customary law - which was valid in court - for commoners at the end pf the middle ages. Nobility was exempt from that, which probably is what you are aiming at. Not from the part of Europe I'm from, and before you say most of the countries you better check again the map of Europe and the history. Regardless, it doesn't really matter if it was 200, 400, or 2000. It is gone now, right?




It will GREATLY influence the outcome of your mathematical routine, especially should interracial marriages be on one end of the bell curve. Not sure it is though, just mentioning that your prediction is not so valid. Whatever, again it is just a matter of time. However you make the formula complicated, at the end, in a future, it will happen. I'm not going to argue about exact century or even millennium. Eventually it will happen regardless of yours or my feelings on this issue.

Kardu
24-03-15, 10:18
LeBrok, surprisingly (or maybe not) you have a naive vision of how future will unfold, namely it will be a mere linear progression of the liberal trends (started by interest groups) which you observe now.

What if unexpected happens, as it was the case numerous times in the past: pandemy, global war, earthquake of great magnitude etc.? Plus, religious groups around the globe have more kids than those in "enlightened" cosmopolitan centres, and they are not fond of your utopia.

You can stubbornly repeat your mantra again and again that "it will happen", but it more looks like you are trying to convince yourself...

epoch
24-03-15, 11:01
Not from the part of Europe I'm from, and before you say most of the countries you better check again the map of Europe and the history.

s/most/many/g <- Better?

I know the book Montaillou showed arranged marriages but I also know other studies show that at least consent of bride and groom was necessary. Even in the south of Europe. The necessity could lead to a standoff where the child refused to marry.


Regardless, it doesn't really matter if it was 200, 400, or 2000. It is gone now, right?

It does matter, because some facts do not comply to the image of brutal past via enlightenment to liberation.


Whatever, again it is just a matter of time. However you make the formula complicated, at the end, in a future, it will happen. I'm not going to argue about exact century or even millennium. Eventually it will happen regardless of yours or my feelings on this issue.

Let's take an Indian example. Indeed, a number of urban people "modernize" their lifestyles. These couples are getting less and less children, less than sustaining level. Countryside couples are getting less children too, but (far) more than sustaining level. The outcome is than urban area's will become a population sink.

giuseppe rossi
24-03-15, 11:07
A typical mixed couple from Italy.

Ilaria Spada, Italian Gypsy father and Tunisian mother.

http://www.ivid.it/fotogallery/imagesearch/images/spada_ilaria_attrice_028_jpg_hwkc.jpg

Kim Rossi Stuart, Italian, Scottish, Dutch and German.

http://invidia.pianetadonna.it/pictures/20120716/kim-rossi-stuart.jpeg

They have a blond child.

http://www.oggi.it/gossip/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/06/ilaria-spada-ettore-sorrisi-nozze-645.jpg

http://www.ilmessaggero.it/FotoGallery_IMG/HIGH/20140217_63263_01_00267232000003h.jpg

Kardu
24-03-15, 11:13
Giuseppe, what are you trying to prove? And those people are not mixed race...

giuseppe rossi
24-03-15, 11:40
The woman is a mix of Caucasoid, Australoid and Negroid.

Call it as you wish.

Kardu
24-03-15, 12:50
The woman is a mix of Caucasoid, Australoid and Negroid.

Call it as you wish.

?? Are Tunisians Negroids or Gypsies - Australoid?

And what? You wanna say that mixed offspring can be physically attractive? It is not the point of this discussion

Expredel
24-03-15, 14:34
Can people still openly say they only date within their race without repercussion? If the current trend continues people with pure ancestry may feel forced to find a partner of a different race to avoid social stigma.

Some racially pure sects would survive, but it would be viewed as such an abhorrent ideology that governments eventually take away the children and place them in normal homes, this is already happening and often for good reasons. Most people would agree that a child should not be taught racist believes.

Templar
24-03-15, 15:36
Can people still openly say they only date within their race without repercussion? If the current trend continues people with pure ancestry may feel forced to find a partner of a different race to avoid social stigma.

Some racially pure sects would survive, but it would be viewed as such an abhorrent ideology that governments eventually take away the children and place them in normal homes, this is already happening and often for good reasons. Most people would agree that a child should not be taught racist believes.

Certain interest groups want to create societies where no one has an identity, culture, or idealistic beliefs. Once all that is removed, all that is left is consumerist materialism, which basically means that people will only be loyal to money and easily controlled. Mixing is one of the easiest ways to do this because it splits your loyalties into all different sides until they all are equally irrelevant to you.

Kardu
24-03-15, 17:11
Can people still openly say they only date within their race without repercussion? If the current trend continues people with pure ancestry may feel forced to find a partner of a different race to avoid social stigma.

Some racially pure sects would survive, but it would be viewed as such an abhorrent ideology that governments eventually take away the children and place them in normal homes, this is already happening and often for good reasons. Most people would agree that a child should not be taught racist believes.

And LeBrok and Angela 'innocently' deny existence of soft totalitarianism under the guise of progress and enlightenment..

John Doe
24-03-15, 19:20
European Jews genetically fit right in the east Mediterranean and almost in the Near east, even though they've been minorities in Europe since before the Middle ages. You've got to respect how true to tradition they've been.

There is an aspect of healthy love for family and tradition to nativism and it should not be assumed to be raciest. Anyone who grew an emotional bond to their town, sports team, school, etc. can understand this.
Ashkenazi Jews fit (genetically speaking) right next to Maltese and Sicilians according to Lazaridis, and these 3 populations seem to bridge Europe and the near east, 2 regions which, without those 3 populations, would have a clear gap.

LeBrok
25-03-15, 05:16
LeBrok, surprisingly (or maybe not) you have a naive vision of how future will unfold, namely it will be a mere linear progression of the liberal trends (started by interest groups) which you observe now. Liberal or not it is an observable trend and it is speeding up. You can go with statistical science or with your feelings. It's your choice.


What if unexpected happens, as it was the case numerous times in the past: pandemy, global war, earthquake of great magnitude etc.? Plus, religious groups around the globe have more kids than those in "enlightened" cosmopolitan centres, and they are not fond of your utopia. The more mixed society the bigger the chance to have a mutation, which will save them from pandemic. Go to Amazon Jungle with a flue and you will kill the whole tribe of isolated natives.


You can stubbornly repeat your mantra again and again that "it will happen", but it more looks like you are trying to convince yourself... Again, you can chose to believe your demagoguery or understand statistics. You can chose with your hart, or with logic. Your call.

LeBrok
25-03-15, 05:27
s/most/many/g <- Better?

I know the book Montaillou showed arranged marriages but I also know other studies show that at least consent of bride and groom was necessary. Even in the south of Europe. The necessity could lead to a standoff where the child refused to marry. Sure, depending on culture young people had some degree of freedom in choosing a spouse. Now they have full freedom, with parents only serving with advise.




It does matter, because some facts do not comply to the image of brutal past via enlightenment to liberation. Whatever, young people are free to exercise their full will now, regardless in what light each of us perceives the past.




Let's take an Indian example. Indeed, a number of urban people "modernize" their lifestyles. These couples are getting less and less children, less than sustaining level. Countryside couples are getting less children too, but (far) more than sustaining level. The outcome is than urban area's will become a population sink. What are you trying to say? Humanity will die off first, before fully mixed?

LeBrok
25-03-15, 06:01
Certain interest groups want to create societies where no one has an identity, culture, or idealistic beliefs. Once all that is removed, all that is left is consumerist materialism, which basically means that people will only be loyal to money and easily controlled. Mixing is one of the easiest ways to do this because it splits your loyalties into all different sides until they all are equally irrelevant to you.


And LeBrok and Angela 'innocently' deny existence of soft totalitarianism under the guise of progress and enlightenment..

Nobody denies that there are interest groups or rich individuals supporting certain views with their deep pockets. Everybody is trying to influence people with their views, the conservatives, religious groups, atheists, liberals, Nazis, Chinese, Arabs, Russians, philanthropists, etc, etc. The point is there is no national government program, or propaganda if you will, in States or Canada in support of one uniform view. The only agenda is democracy, to make sure people are free, free to choose, express, believe, inclusive to all, protection of weak and unfortunate, equality in justice, and few other things we understand under Democratic system. In this free environment people can hear any voice, find what they like and understand, and formulate their views and actions.
Here you will find conservative and even racist views encouraging people to marry into their own community, and other views saying that it is perfectly ok to marry anyone you want. The point is people make their own choices here in finding partners. They also have a free choice to divorce if they feel that they made a mistake. Nobody prosecutes people for making their choices and their own mistakes, in finding partners.

I lived in totalitarian regime, I hated it, escaped to Canada and I love it. I know what is propaganda and agenda, I know totalitarian and free. So don't give me this totalitarian disguise bull***.

The funny thing is that you believe in free choice of choosing spouses, but at the same time you limit it to your own race or ethnicity. I also believe in free choice, but without limitation to colour or nationality. And I have the agenda?!

Kardu
25-03-15, 19:12
You lived under a totalitarian regime?
Ok, it makes sense now that the 'free world' brings you such childish euphoria :)
Anyhow, at least in Europe the situation will be drastically different within next 10 years. You will witness it already from 2016.
Perhaps, wind of Liberty will reach Canada as well (at least Quebec)..

p.s. yeah some people even marry their cats and dogs. All free and happy.

Aberdeen
25-03-15, 19:18
..............

Let's take an Indian example. Indeed, a number of urban people "modernize" their lifestyles. These couples are getting less and less children, less than sustaining level. Countryside couples are getting less children too, but (far) more than sustaining level. The outcome is than urban area's will become a population sink.

Throughout recorded histories, most cities have had low reproduction rates and have been net importers of people. The reason cities keep growing instead of shrinking is because surplus rural populations have always migrated to cities. I myself am an example of that. Now that mechanized farming has emptied the countryside in developed nations, their cities and overall populations will begin to shrink, but that is mostly because of technologies, not social philosophies.

Aberdeen
25-03-15, 19:44
You lived under a totalitarian regime?
Ok, it makes sense now that the 'free world' brings you such childish euphoria :)
Anyhow, at least in Europe the situation will be drastically different within next 10 years. You will witness it already from 2016.
Perhaps, wind of Liberty will reach Canada as well (at least Quebec)..

p.s. yeah some people even marry their cats and dogs. All free and happy.

So, if a Norwegian is allowed to marry a Filipino, it will result in some people wanting to marry their cats and dogs? That's very interesting logic, that is.

LeBrok
25-03-15, 19:56
You lived under a totalitarian regime?
Ok, it makes sense now that the 'free world' brings you such childish euphoria :)
Anyhow, at least in Europe the situation will be drastically different within next 10 years. You will witness it already from 2016.
Perhaps, wind of Liberty will reach Canada as well (at least Quebec)..

p.s. yeah some people even marry their cats and dogs. All free and happy. Childish is a believe of conspiracies, secret societies who are trying to get you.


Anyhow, at least in Europe the situation will be drastically different within next 10 years. You will witness it already from 2016.
And what new conspiracy is this? Revival of Occupy the Wall Street? Nationalistic parties taking powers in Europe?
Just watch out. They will kick you out off Spain, you're enjoying so much, back to Georgia. Which reminds me, that you should change your flag for the country of residence.

Kardu
25-03-15, 23:32
Childish is a believe of conspiracies, secret societies who are trying to get you.

And what new conspiracy is this? Revival of Occupy the Wall Street? Nationalistic parties taking powers in Europe?
Just watch out. They will kick you out off Spain, you're enjoying so much, back to Georgia. Which reminds me, that you should change your flag for the country of residence.

Snooping IP address are not we?! :D why i am not surprised..

I appreciate your concern but don't you worry I have numerous comrades among Spaniards and other Europeans. We stand for the same cause.

LeBrok
25-03-15, 23:53
Snooping IP address are not we?! :D why i am not surprised..

In case you don't know, that's a moderator's job to make sure people comply with Eupedia rules. So, when are you going to change it?




I appreciate your concern but don't you worry I have numerous comrades among Spaniards and other Europeans. We stand for the same cause. What cause?

Kardu
26-03-15, 00:17
In case you don't know, that's a moderator's job to make sure people comply with Eupedia rules. So, when are you going to change it?



What cause?
I travel a lot, not gonna change the flag every time I stay in a new country.

To undo Jacobins' work ;)

LeBrok
26-03-15, 00:46
I travel a lot, not gonna change the flag every time I stay in a new country.

To undo Jacobins' work ;)

I shall call you Don Quixote, how fitting to the location.



Hurry up with your work though. The new atheist gospel is growing fast.

Check at 30 min 20 sec in.

https://youtu.be/3xMoBsozcUE?t=1947

All the organized religion gives without the trappings of believing in god(s).

Kardu
26-03-15, 01:31
I shall call you Don Quixote, how fitting to the location.



Hurry up with your work though. The new atheist gospel is growing fast.

Check at 30 min 20 sec in.

https://youtu.be/3xMoBsozcUE?t=1947

All the organized religion gives without the trappings of believing in god(s).

I take it as a compliment :)

You love to rush to conclusions don't you? Have I ever said that I was a religious believer? :) While you certainly are a secular Christian

LeBrok
27-03-15, 04:58
This chart indicates the mixing trend very nicely. Statistics from London, GB. People not only mix, but mixing is speeding up.
http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20140208_BRC281.png

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21595908-rapid-rise-mixed-race-britain-changing-neighbourhoodsand-perplexing

LeBrok
27-03-15, 05:01
I take it as a compliment :)

You love to rush to conclusions don't you? Have I ever said that I was a religious believer? :) While you certainly are a secular Christian I used to be, now I'm atheists.

Kardu
27-03-15, 11:11
I used to be, now I'm atheists.
"to make sure people are free, free to choose, express, believe, inclusive to all, protection of weak and unfortunate, equality in justice, and few other things" - all this universalism stems from Christianity (one of the reasons why I am not one). You might not believe in Christian God, but if you share those values, then it makes you a secular christian.

LeBrok
27-03-15, 19:27
"to make sure people are free, free to choose, express, believe, inclusive to all, protection of weak and unfortunate, equality in justice, and few other things" - all this universalism stems from Christianity (one of the reasons why I am not one). You might not believe in Christian God, but if you share those values, then it makes you a secular christian.
You must have went to special school to learn this secret knowledge. Thanks for telling me who I am. I was blind, now I can see.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20140208_BRC281.png

What do you think about this, mixing is speeding up, right?

Fire Haired14
27-03-15, 22:42
Nobody denies that there are interest groups or rich individuals supporting certain views with their deep pockets. Everybody is trying to influence people with their views, the conservatives, religious groups, atheists, liberals, Nazis, Chinese, Arabs, Russians, philanthropists, etc, etc. The point is there is no national government program, or propaganda if you will, in States or Canada in support of one uniform view. The only agenda is democracy, to make sure people are free, free to choose, express, believe, inclusive to all, protection of weak and unfortunate, equality in justice, and few other things we understand under Democratic system. In this free environment people can hear any voice, find what they like and understand, and formulate their views and actions.
Here you will find conservative and even racist views encouraging people to marry into their own community, and other views saying that it is perfectly ok to marry anyone you want. The point is people make their own choices here in finding partners. They also have a free choice to divorce if they feel that they made a mistake. Nobody prosecutes people for making their choices and their own mistakes, in finding partners.

I lived in totalitarian regime, I hated it, escaped to Canada and I love it. I know what is propaganda and agenda, I know totalitarian and free. So don't give me this totalitarian disguise bull***.

The funny thing is that you believe in free choice of choosing spouses, but at the same time you limit it to your own race or ethnicity. I also believe in free choice, but without limitation to colour or nationality. And I have the agenda?!

By law that's true but in reality it is totally false. Religious people and conservatives are constantly mocked in popular culture. If anything our establishment if of atheist liberals, who do send out propaganda via media(not that it's illegal, just they're inproportionally in control).

This is what I've observed. It may be hard for you to see because you agree with alot of what they say. Don't call me crazy because I'm not one who jumps to quick conclusions because of an agenda. No I haven't done years worth of research on it to prove it to you because I don't have time, but I witness it everyday.

Also, I totally dis agree with this idea you have that tolerance means we should allow people to do and be whatever the heck they want. Human society is like a family and the way everyone thinks and acts affects everyone. There are very hard to define black lines that should not be ignored.

Aberdeen
27-03-15, 23:17
By law that's true but in reality it is totally false. Religious people and conservatives are constantly mocked in popular culture. If anything our establishment if of atheist liberals, who do send out propaganda via media(not that it's illegal, just they're inproportionally in control).

This is what I've observed. It may be hard for you to see because you agree with alot of what they say. Don't call me crazy because I'm not one who jumps to quick conclusions because of an agenda. No I haven't done years worth of research on it to prove it to you because I don't have time, but I witness it everyday.

Also, I totally dis agree with this idea you have that tolerance means we should allow people to do and be whatever the heck they want. Human society is like a family and the way everyone thinks and acts affects everyone. There are very hard to define black lines that should not be ignored.

I realize that poor, butt hurt religious conservatives will refuse to recognize that the media (which is generally owned by rich people) tends to be kinder towards them than it is toward ebil libruls. However, when you say that you disagree with the idea that "tolerance means we should allow people to do and be whatever the heck they want", you're basically arguing with the dictionary. My dictionary defines "tolerance" as "a willingness to be tolerant and patient toward people whose opinion or ways differ from one's own".

Maleth
27-03-15, 23:21
By law that's true but in reality it is totally false. Religious people and conservatives are constantly mocked in popular culture. If anything our establishment if of atheist liberals, who do send out propaganda via media(not that it's illegal, just they're inproportionally in control).

.....and you really truly believe that Religion or Conservatives never mock anyone? saying that people will burn in hell just because they are not interested in what they preach isnt even worse then mockng? Isnt it amazing that someone thinks what they say is legitimate and if challenged they are mocked? How many examples do you need of Religious hate speech (mocking)?

Kardu
28-03-15, 00:14
You must have went to special school to learn this secret knowledge. Thanks for telling me who I am. I was blind, now I can see.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20140208_BRC281.png

What do you think about this, mixing is speeding up, right?
Alas you are still blind :)

Well, I don't have much trust for the bogus surveys and research done by politically biased bodies
But even if it's true, so what? Interest groups created this situation, let's see how counter interest groups will change it.

Kardu
28-03-15, 00:17
The theme of this thread has been changed from Will all people of the world mix creating one race in the future? (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28314-Will-all-people-of-the-world-mix-creating-one-race-in-the-future/page7)
to
Do you support all people of the world to mix creating one race in the future? (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28314-Will-all-people-of-the-world-mix-creating-one-race-in-the-future/page7) :)

Aberdeen
28-03-15, 01:02
The theme of this thread has been changed from Will all people of the world mix creating one race in the future? (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28314-Will-all-people-of-the-world-mix-creating-one-race-in-the-future/page7)


to
Do you support all people of the world to mix creating one race in the future? (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28314-Will-all-people-of-the-world-mix-creating-one-race-in-the-future/page7) :)



Really? I thought the topic had changed to:

"A lot of racial mixing is going on these days, and that's likely to continue even if some people disapprove, but why does that bother you so much? (Please explain without resorting to conspiracy theories involving the Protocols of Zion or the Bavarian Illuminati.)"

Fire Haired14
28-03-15, 01:10
I realize that poor, butt hurt religious conservatives will refuse to recognize that the media (which is generally owned by rich people) tends to be kinder towards them than it is toward ebil libruls. However, when you say that you disagree with the idea that "tolerance means we should allow people to do and be whatever the heck they want", you're basically arguing with the dictionary. My dictionary defines "tolerance" as "a willingness to be tolerant and patient toward people whose opinion or ways differ from one's own".

I dis agree with this. Maybe sometime in the future I'll organize the time to prove to you and others how biasedly liberal(for the most part) the public world is. I don't understand why libearls can't understand this. My guess is you don't want it to be true. Watch Family Guy and Saturday Night Live or any other popular show, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Please keep the words poor and butt-hurt out of this. We're here to discuss and find the correct answer together not be enemies.

Fire Haired14
28-03-15, 01:15
.....and you really truly believe that Religion or Conservatives never mock anyone? saying that people will burn in hell just because they are not interested in what they preach isnt even worse then mockng? Isnt it amazing that someone thinks what they say is legitimate and if challenged they are mocked? How many examples do you need of Religious hate speech (mocking)?

Not all conservatives are cultic-nut cases. Besides what people say in churches and private life is differnt than what they say in the media, it has much less influence. This is a large generalization. I never said they don't mock anyone. All I said is they are often mocked via media, and the public is given a biased picture when it comes to social issues and politics. Please don't miss interpret me. I'm not you're stero-typical right-wing extremist, who would support the tea party, etc.

Angela
28-03-15, 01:16
Alas you are still blind :)

Well, I don't have much trust for the bogus surveys and research done by politically biased bodies
But even if it's true, so what? Interest groups created this situation, let's see how counter interest groups will change it.

Oh, for goodness sakes'...this isn't Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen_County,_New_Jersey
Take a look at the "ethnic" and racial groups that are represented in this county, one of the richest in the U.S.

This is a more "mixed" town, maybe a quarter African-American, so higher than the national average:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ywWdkJCHzaI/U6gU92A-EVI/AAAAAAAAG3E/Dj6Z1unoaFg/s1600/chsprom.jpg

Even in the more predominantly "white" villages like Ridgewood, which is in the top 25 richest villages in the U.S., it sometimes looks like this:
http://www.bergen.com/polopoly_fs/1.761048.1396077476!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/bergen_story_image_fixedh/dsc-0253.jpg

Are all the parents thrilled? No, some, perhaps even the majority, are not thrilled when it involves their own children, even if in general they don't oppose it. Do all the kids cross the "color line" when dating? Absolutely not. In fact, the majority clearly do not, as the statistics indicate. However, it is increasing, and the attitude is live and let live, even among the adults. As for the kids, even if they don't date across certain lines, they are friends or at least friendly. (The situation is totally different as concerns the really impoverished minority communities. )

No internet "white supremacist" group is going to turn the vast majority of these kids into nut jobs foaming at the mouth because some of their peers are part of inter-racial partnerships. The only ones that might be affected are the at risk kids who are loners and outsiders for various reasons. The older generation is totally out of step, and that goes for the so called African American leaders too. As for inter-ethnic issues, forget it...everybody is 1/4 this, 1/4 that, 1/2 the other. Nobody cares.

Fire Haired14
28-03-15, 01:23
I realize that poor, butt hurt religious conservatives will refuse to recognize that the media (which is generally owned by rich people) tends to be kinder towards them than it is toward ebil libruls. However, when you say that you disagree with the idea that "tolerance means we should allow people to do and be whatever the heck they want", you're basically arguing with the dictionary. My dictionary defines "tolerance" as "a willingness to be tolerant and patient toward people whose opinion or ways differ from one's own".

So, you're assuming rich people are conservative?

Fire Haired14
28-03-15, 01:26
I realize that poor, butt hurt religious conservatives will refuse to recognize that the media (which is generally owned by rich people) tends to be kinder towards them than it is toward ebil libruls. However, when you say that you disagree with the idea that "tolerance means we should allow people to do and be whatever the heck they want", you're basically arguing with the dictionary. My dictionary defines "tolerance" as "a willingness to be tolerant and patient toward people whose opinion or ways differ from one's own".

It's the idea not word that matters. I don't care how the dictionary defines tolerant. I care about my values, and you can call it whatever you want. Besides that definition doesn't suggest you there are no boundaries.

Angela
28-03-15, 01:30
Not all conservatives are cultic-nut cases. Besides what people say in churches and private life is differnt than what they say in the media, it has much less influence. This is a large generalization. I never said they don't mock anyone. All I said is they are often mocked via media, and the public is given a biased picture when it comes to social issues and politics. Please don't miss interpret me. I'm not you're stero-typical right-wing extremist, who would support the tea party, etc.

You're right, Fire-Haired. There's too much generalization on all sides and there are nut jobs on all sides. There are Christians and there are Christians, and the surest way to get mocked in the media is to have anything good to say about established religions.

LeBrok
28-03-15, 02:55
By law that's true but in reality it is totally false. Religious people and conservatives are constantly mocked in popular culture. If anything our establishment if of atheist liberals, who do send out propaganda via media(not that it's illegal, just they're inproportionally in control).

This is what I've observed. It may be hard for you to see because you agree with alot of what they say. Don't call me crazy because I'm not one who jumps to quick conclusions because of an agenda. No I haven't done years worth of research on it to prove it to you because I don't have time, but I witness it everyday.

Also, I totally dis agree with this idea you have that tolerance means we should allow people to do and be whatever the heck they want. Human society is like a family and the way everyone thinks and acts affects everyone. There are very hard to define black lines that should not be ignored.

Conservatives mock liberals and liberals mock conservatives, in all mass-medias. That's part of being free, isn't it? But what with "God bless America" in very presidential speech, swearing on a bible in courts of law, or Trusting in God on the money, and teaching creationism in schools". Shouldn't you have a separation of religion and a state? In some ways US is still quite conservative, not enough inclusive and tolerant.

Fire Haired14
28-03-15, 03:54
Conservatives mock liberals and liberals mock conservatives, in all mass-medias. That's part of being free, isn't it?

The mocking isn't evenly distributed. There shouldn't be any mocking in the first place. I don't mean to be offensive, but you're lying to yourself if you think we life in a balanced society.


But what with "God bless America" in very presidential speech, swearing on a bible in courts of law, or Trusting in God on the money, and teaching creationism in schools". Shouldn't you have a separation of religion and a state? In some ways US is still quite conservative, not enough inclusive and tolerant.

America didn't pop out of no where, it has roots. America in many ways comes from Europe(British colony, there's no debating this) which was pretty much uniformly Christian for a 1,000 years before America was founded. When America was founded it existed in a very Christian society, and the only diversity of religion were differnt Christian sects and other very unpopular newly formed religions. If Poles founded a country like America in the 1700s somewhere far away would you surprised to find leaks of Catholicism in its traditional way of doing government?

This is why we have in God this and that. It's been around since our begging and if you understand culturally where America comes from you should be fine with it. This is not evidence that the current media is conservative or balanced. I don't dispute there's biased conservatism in mainstream society but I won't lie and say its balanced.

LeBrok
28-03-15, 04:25
The mocking isn't evenly distributed. There shouldn't be any mocking in the first place. I don't mean to be offensive, but you're lying to yourself if you think we life in a balanced society. I didn't say balanced. Though surly you have two strong elements, conservatives and liberals pulling their ways, and most of the people in between.


America didn't pop out of no where, it has roots. America in many ways comes from Europe(British colony, there's no debating this) which was pretty much uniformly Christian for a 1,000 years before America was founded. When America was founded it existed in a very Christian society, and the only diversity of religion were differnt Christian sects and other very unpopular newly formed religions. If Poles founded a country like America in the 1700s somewhere far away would you surprised to find leaks of Catholicism in its traditional way of doing government?
Poland is more conservative than America with catholic church having a strong influence on politics and society in general. America in 1700 hundreds was a different animal, so to speak, than it is right now. It consists of inter racial and ethnic, inter religious, and also atheistic community and should give up the useless relics of the past. Should be more tolerant and inclusive.
What value is for Atheist or Hindu to swear on a bible?
Saying "God bless America" will not force god to bless it, will it? If anything it should be a request "May God bless America".
Which god should bless it if future president is Hindu or Native Indian? Using religious symbols in addressing vast ethnic community and by any head of state is a bad taste, if not simply wrong.

Fire Haired14
28-03-15, 04:51
Lebrok, I agree that if America was founded today it shouldn't favor one religion over another in government phrases, etc. Although I don't think it's necessary to replace all of the traditions in government laid down in the past. Maybe some stuff can be changed.

Maleth
28-03-15, 08:11
Not all conservatives are cultic-nut cases. Besides what people say in churches and private life is differnt than what they say in the media, it has much less influence.

maybe today yes and only in a part of the world as a big chunk of the world population is still highly influenced by their religions leaders and in return the media bellows their sentiments. The world is not only made up of the USA. And do not underestimate the influence these so religious leaders have on a huge segment of the population (even in the USA and Europe}. If you want to discuss religion get familiar with their scriptures without any cherry picking, to which we have been so accustomed to and let me know if its not an institutionalized mocking exercise to people who do not agree with the ideologies. Of course there are good sides to the story, but the horrendous sides should not be swept under the carpet as its all part and parcel of ideologies. No one in a free world should pretend or expect not to be challenged

Maleth
28-03-15, 08:18
You're right, Fire-Haired. There's too much generalization on all sides and there are nut jobs on all sides. There are Christians and there are Christians, and the surest way to get mocked in the media is to have anything good to say about established religions.

Are you familiar with scriptures as a whole Angela? I mean without the cherry picking exercises we are so accustomed too?

Aberdeen
28-03-15, 09:04
So, you're assuming rich people are conservative?

Most wealthy Americans seem to be very conservative in the economic sense of wanting their corporations to be free from taxation and have fairly unfettered freedom of action. They tend to provide funds to support social conservatives, apparently on the assumption that social conservatives will support the idea of more power for corporations, etc., which generally seems to be the case. One example of rich people using social conservatives to promote a corporate agenda is your so-called Tea Party, which was initially created by professional organizers who were largely funded by the notorious Koch brothers.

Aberdeen
28-03-15, 09:13
It's the idea not word that matters. I don't care how the dictionary defines tolerant. I care about my values, and you can call it whatever you want. Besides that definition doesn't suggest you there are no boundaries.

So, you don't want to see yourself as intolerant, you just want to not tolerate those who you disagree with? Have I understood you correctly? Words do have meaning, and anyone who doesn't tolerate ideas and actions they disagree with is, by definition, intolerant. Of course, there are many things that most of us are intolerant of, but the kind of things that are not tolerated in secular democracies are those things that interfere with the rights of others. Some people may personally believe that certain types of behaviour are, in their personal view, wrong because an invisible, magic person in the sky forbids such behaviour but they nevertheless tolerate such behaviour in others because they accept that not everyone shares their beliefs. That's one of the founding principles of secular democracy and it was embraced by the founding fathers of your country, who were mostly free thinkers and freemasons who believed in democracy and humanistic values.

Aberdeen
28-03-15, 09:18
You're right, Fire-Haired. There's too much generalization on all sides and there are nut jobs on all sides. There are Christians and there are Christians, and the surest way to get mocked in the media is to have anything good to say about established religions.

Can you provide some specific examples to support your claim?

Aberdeen
28-03-15, 09:21
Lebrok, I agree that if America was founded today it shouldn't favor one religion over another in government phrases, etc. Although I don't think it's necessary to replace all of the traditions in government laid down in the past. Maybe some stuff can be changed.

Your own constitution does not favour one religion over another in "government phrases". The only thing it says about religion is that your Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It does not define "religion" as meaning one specific religion.

Aberdeen
28-03-15, 09:28
The mocking isn't evenly distributed. There shouldn't be any mocking in the first place. I don't mean to be offensive, but you're lying to yourself if you think we life in a balanced society.



America didn't pop out of no where, it has roots. America in many ways comes from Europe(British colony, there's no debating this) which was pretty much uniformly Christian for a 1,000 years before America was founded. When America was founded it existed in a very Christian society, and the only diversity of religion were differnt Christian sects and other very unpopular newly formed religions. If Poles founded a country like America in the 1700s somewhere far away would you surprised to find leaks of Catholicism in its traditional way of doing government?

This is why we have in God this and that. It's been around since our begging and if you understand culturally where America comes from you should be fine with it. This is not evidence that the current media is conservative or balanced. I don't dispute there's biased conservatism in mainstream society but I won't lie and say its balanced.

Actually, "in God this and that" wasn't around in the beginning of your country. The unofficial motto of the U.S. was a Latin phrase "e pluribus unum". It wasn't until 1956 that the unofficial motto was replaced by an official motto "one nation under god". It was only in 1954 that the phrase "under god" was added to your pledge of allegiance.

Fire Haired14
28-03-15, 09:40
Actually, "in God this and that" wasn't around in the beginning of your country. The unofficial motto of the U.S. was a Latin phrase "e pluribus unum". It wasn't until 1956 that the unofficial motto was replaced by an official motto "one nation under god". It was only in 1954 that the phrase "under god" was added to your pledge of allegiance.

My point still holds. That was about 60 years ago, it's said and done. The country was also very differnt back then. If people want to change I'm fine with that, but it will cause a very large divide in the country which isn't good.

Maleth
28-03-15, 11:32
The theme of this thread has been changed from Will all people of the world mix creating one race in the future? (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28314-Will-all-people-of-the-world-mix-creating-one-race-in-the-future/page7)


to
Do you support all people of the world to mix creating one race in the future? (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28314-Will-all-people-of-the-world-mix-creating-one-race-in-the-future/page7) :)



Its not a matter of supporting, but what people (humans) do if left to their free will without being intimidated. I have never come across (yet at least) parents that intimidated or forced their children to marry someone of a difference race yet. However came across a good number of people to the contrary.

LeBrok
28-03-15, 19:39
Its not a matter of supporting, but what people (humans) do if left to their free will without being intimidated. I have never come across (yet at least) parents that intimidated or forced their children to marry someone of a difference race yet. However came across a good number of people to the contrary.
Kardu will be one of them pressuring his kids to marry their own kind. But supposedly we are the ones with agenda. :67:

Kardu
28-03-15, 20:15
Oh, for goodness sakes'...this isn't Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen_County,_New_Jersey
Take a look at the "ethnic" and racial groups that are represented in this county, one of the richest in the U.S.

This is a more "mixed" town, maybe a quarter African-American, so higher than the national average:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ywWdkJCHzaI/U6gU92A-EVI/AAAAAAAAG3E/Dj6Z1unoaFg/s1600/chsprom.jpg

Even in the more predominantly "white" villages like Ridgewood, which is in the top 25 richest villages in the U.S., it sometimes looks like this:
http://www.bergen.com/polopoly_fs/1.761048.1396077476!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/bergen_story_image_fixedh/dsc-0253.jpg

Are all the parents thrilled? No, some, perhaps even the majority, are not thrilled when it involves their own children, even if in general they don't oppose it. Do all the kids cross the "color line" when dating? Absolutely not. In fact, the majority clearly do not, as the statistics indicate. However, it is increasing, and the attitude is live and let live, even among the adults. As for the kids, even if they don't date across certain lines, they are friends or at least friendly. (The situation is totally different as concerns the really impoverished minority communities. )

No internet "white supremacist" group is going to turn the vast majority of these kids into nut jobs foaming at the mouth because some of their peers are part of inter-racial partnerships. The only ones that might be affected are the at risk kids who are loners and outsiders for various reasons. The older generation is totally out of step, and that goes for the so called African American leaders too. As for inter-ethnic issues, forget it...everybody is 1/4 this, 1/4 that, 1/2 the other. Nobody cares.

So if you want to defend your group's interests it makes you a 'supremasist'?! what bull*** reasoning is this? Although I am not surprised, it's usual liberal cheap trick way of 'arguing'... I am waiting when you gonna start screaming: Nazi :useless:

Aberdeen
28-03-15, 21:18
So if you want to defend your group's interests it makes you a 'supremasist'?! what bull*** reasoning is this? Although I am not surprised, it's usual liberal cheap trick way of 'arguing'... I am waiting when you gonna start screaming: Nazi :useless:

Nobody is saying that we want to force you to marry someone whose race or complexion is different from your own. I think you should be able to marry whatever type of person you choose, as long as they're agreeable to the idea. We're saying that, just as you should have the right to marry someone of the same race, if you so choose, other people should have the choice to marry outside their own race if that's what they want.

I chose to marry someone of the same race as myself, but it's none of my business if other people choose differently. After all, modern white Europeans wouldn't exist as they are today if it weren't for some racial mixing that happened thousands of years ago.

Kardu
28-03-15, 21:57
Nobody is saying that we want to force you to marry someone whose race or complexion is different from your own. I think you should be able to marry whatever type of person you choose, as long as they're agreeable to the idea. We're saying that, just as you should have the right to marry someone of the same race, if you so choose, other people should have the choice to marry outside their own race if that's what they want.

I chose to marry someone of the same race as myself, but it's none of my business if other people choose differently. After all, modern white Europeans wouldn't exist as they are today if it weren't for some racial mixing that happened thousands of years ago.
Exactly which races were mixed to create modern white Europeans?

When others act to defend their group interests that uberindividualistic thinking puts you at disadvantage.

P.S. and why all this emphasis on white Europeans? I am for diversity, I want Japanese, Africans, Amerindians etc. to keep their identity, cherish their heritage and develop their cultures.

LeBrok
28-03-15, 22:00
So if you want to defend your group's interests it makes you a 'supremasist'?! what bull*** reasoning is this? Although I am not surprised, it's usual liberal cheap trick way of 'arguing'... I am waiting when you gonna start screaming: Nazi :useless:
I hope you understand the difference of personal preference in making one's choices, versus forcing your personal preference on others, when selecting a spouse.

mihaitzateo
28-03-15, 22:06
Depends on everyone personal preference.

Rethel
28-03-15, 22:09
Exactly which races were mixed to create modern white Europeans?

Corded, mediterrenian, alpine, mongoloid, some of negroes from Africa...
But probably the other races were absorbed by lighter types, and that
means, that probably the lighter types were much more numerous than
the darker ones. In south Europe or in Asia the absorbtion was different:
darker were probably more numerous than lighter types.

p.s. Kardu - Georgians for us in Europe, are a pretty dark people... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif

LeBrok
28-03-15, 22:15
Exactly which races were mixed to create modern white Europeans? Race of West Hunter Gatherer (who carried some African admixture), race of ANE hunter gatherer from Siberia, and race of neolithic farmers from Near East. Also in modern Europeans we see some levels of African, East Asian and South Asian admixtures. If you think we look the same, think and act the same like our ancestors from 10kya in Europe, you are kidding yourself.


When others act to defend their group interests that uberindividualistic thinking puts you at disadvantage. What choosing a spouse have to do with group interest? What disadvantage would the mixing bring?


P.S. and why all this emphasis on white Europeans? I am for diversity, I want Japanese, Africans, Amerindians etc. to keep their identity, cherish their heritage and develop their cultures. We all are, the difference is you want to force people into staying within own group, we (cultural liberals) want this to be a personal choice, a total freedom of choice, in this regard.

Aberdeen
28-03-15, 22:15
Exactly which races were mixed to create modern white Europeans?

When others act to defend their group interests that uberindividualistic thinking puts you at disadvantage.

P.S. and why all this emphasis on white Europeans? I am for diversity, I want Japanese, Africans, Amerindians etc. to keep their identity, cherish their heritage and develop their cultures.

I'm emphasizing white Europeans because that's who my ancestors were. And if you were interested in genetics, you would know that modern Europeans are mostly a mixture of hunter/gatherer types who were already in Europe during the Mesolithic, farmers from the Middle East who moved to Europe during the Neolithic and Bronze Age invaders from the east who seem to have been a racial mixture themselves.

I'm all for people developing and enjoying national identities - I like mine. I just don't want to dictate to other people that they have to stay in the cultural mould they were born in if they aren't comfortable there.

Edit: I didn't see LeBrok's last post - he did a good job of addressing this stuff.

Aberdeen
28-03-15, 22:21
Corded, mediterrenian, alpine, mongoloid, some of negroes from Africa...
But probably the other races were absorbed by lighter types, and that
means, that probably the lighter types were much more numerous than
the darker ones. In south Europe or in Asia, the absorbtion was differet:
darker were probably more numeriuos than lighter types.

p.s. Kardu - Georgians for us in Europe, are a pretty dark people... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif

That's true - I think the average white person looking at a typical Georgian would classify them as being of mixed race. But hopefully Georgians would not be treated differently because of that.

Rethel
28-03-15, 22:24
I'm all for people developing and enjoying national identities - I like mine. I just don't want to dictate to other people that they have to stay in the cultural mould they were born in if they aren't comfortable there.


I think that in this discussion has place some misunderstanding.
Maybe the topic should be diverse in two parts:
1) personal, spontanious choices of peoples, which have exist always and no one had never nothing against it - f.e. Pushkin and his grandfather.
2) massive invasion of people from diffrent culture and race background plus political indoctrination about cultural and race mixing - see Ainu case.

LeBrok
28-03-15, 22:56
Corded, mediterrenian, alpine, mongoloid, some of negroes from Africa...
But probably the other races were absorbed by lighter types, and that
means, that probably the lighter types were much more numerous than
the darker ones. In south Europe or in Asia the absorbtion was different:
darker were probably more numerous than lighter types.

Actually, the whitening of Europeans was a long and local process, which pretty much ended just now. Whitening alleles coming from many populations, eventually accumulating in North Europe due to natural selection.
Check our previous discussions. Interesting stuff.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30797-Mesolithic-man-Loschbour-brought-back-to-life
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30957-Mesolithic-source-of-Pale-pigmentation-in-modern-Europe
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30570-Ancient-DNA-from-Hungary-Christine-Gamba-et-al

Kardu
28-03-15, 23:24
That's true - I think the average white person looking at a typical Georgian would classify them as being of mixed race. But hopefully Georgians would not be treated differently because of that.

Idiotic remark. Have you even seen a Georgian in your life?

Kardu
28-03-15, 23:25
Actually, the whitening of Europeans was a long and local process, which pretty much ended just now. Whitening alleles coming from many populations, eventually accumulating in North Europe due to natural selection.
Check our previous discussions. Interesting stuff.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30797-Mesolithic-man-Loschbour-brought-back-to-life
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30957-Mesolithic-source-of-Pale-pigmentation-in-modern-Europe
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30570-Ancient-DNA-from-Hungary-Christine-Gamba-et-al

And all those folks freely and happily mixed? I have the feeling that I am talking to a wall...

Rethel
28-03-15, 23:30
Actually, the whitening of Europeans was a long and local process, which pretty much ended just now. Whitening alleles coming from many populations, eventually accumulating in North Europe due to natural selection.
Check our previous discussions. Interesting stuff.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30797-Mesolithic-man-Loschbour-brought-back-to-life
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30957-Mesolithic-source-of-Pale-pigmentation-in-modern-Europe
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30570-Ancient-DNA-from-Hungary-Christine-Gamba-et-al

A was reading some of that before, but I don't belive in that miraculously way of whitening.
This is simply impossible, because everywhere but not in Europe, whiter people were always
absorbing by darker populations. If the receccive genes would be a very little percentige in the
past, they would never manifest themselves in such large territory and widespread population.
It could happend in some small island or small endogamic population, but even then, it would be
very hard for recessive genes to prevail. I give you one example. Basks people are/were close
and small population, but during the centuries they were constantly absorbing some lighter
elements - but they are still a more dark than light population.

Even one recessive gen - Rh minus - who has among them exrime higher percentige in the world, couldn't
dominate the population. And this is just one of many examples, when 100% light or recessive population
was gone inside darker or gen-dominant population. If 100% can vanish - how 1% or even 10% could become
~90%. No, I don't belive in that, I simply can't. :)



There must be some more reasonable explenation, like for example a small recessive population
who after years grow in number and dominated rest of the darker population on the continent.

Otherwise - it is impossible to happend.

Fire Haired14
28-03-15, 23:46
This thread has gotten off subject.

Rethel
28-03-15, 23:51
Idiotic remark. Have you even seen a Georgian in your life?

I was make this "idiotic" remark, not Aberdeen, so you should tell this to me. Yes, I saw
Georgians, Armenians, Chechens, and Abchazic people face to face, and I know some of
them personally. If someone didn't see them 'on live', he can look at them on the Internet.
No problem at all. If you have any douts, ask some Russians, how they call people from
Caucasus in Moscow... I assure you that one of nicknames (most popular) is a color name :-P

Kardu
29-03-15, 00:56
I was make this "idiotic" remark, not Aberdeen, so you should tell this to me. Yes, I saw
Georgians, Armenians, Chechens, and Abchazic people face to face, and I know some of
them personally. If someone didn't see them 'on live', he can look at them on the Internet.
No problem at all. If you have any douts, ask some Russians, how they call people from
Caucasus in Moscow... I assure you that one of nicknames (most popular) is a color name :-P

you are obviously a ***** kiddie

it says: t r o l l

LeBrok
29-03-15, 01:08
Actually, the whitening of Europeans was a long and local process, which pretty much ended just now. Whitening alleles coming from many populations, eventually accumulating in North Europe due to natural selection.
Check our previous discussions. Interesting stuff.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30797-Mesolithic-man-Loschbour-brought-back-to-life
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30957-Mesolithic-source-of-Pale-pigmentation-in-modern-Europe
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30570-Ancient-DNA-from-Hungary-Christine-Gamba-et-al

A was reading some of that before, but I don't belive in that miraculously way of whitening.
This is simply impossible, because everywhere but not in Europe, whiter people were always
absorbing by darker populations. If the receccive genes would be a very little percentige in the
past, they would never manifest themselves in such large territory and widespread population. There was no mirracle. Genetic research is telling us that few thousand years ago there was no one looking exactly like modern Europeans. At the same time we can see many whiter mutations in different communities. We see some of them in Swedish HG, other mutations in Samara Russia region, other mutations in Neolithic Farmers. After few thousand years of natural selection, these mutations finally conglomerated in region of Baltic and North Sea. Simply put, people who had more of these mutations were healthier (didn't lack vitamin D), and had more healthier offspring, busting their survival. The whiter skin folks out-breaded the darker skin ones. The natural election trumpets recessiveness of these genes. No miracle needed.


It could happend in some small island or small endogamic population, but even then, it would be
very hard for recessive genes to prevail. I give you one example. Basks people are/were close
and small population, but during the centuries they were constantly absorbing some lighter
elements - but they are still a more dark than light population. That's because they live farther south, in stronger UV index zone, and very white mutations of skin are not needed. It is even destructive for population there to be very white and will causes many more cases of cancer, than darker skin.
Colour of skin is a balance between getting enough vitamin D and protection from skin cancer, melanin. That's why colour of skin correlates with climatic zones, UV index, plus diet containing D3.



Even one recessive gen - Rh
minus - who has among them exrime higher percentige in the world, couldn't dominate the
population. And this is just one of many examples, when 100% light or recessive population
was gone inside darker or gen-dominant population. If 100% can vanish - how 1% or even
10% could become ~90%. No, I don't belive in that, I simply can't. :)
Recessive function kicks in when genes are equal. However if a gene is very important and beneficial for certain populations, this gene becomes dominant by law of natural selection.




There must be some more reasonable explenation, like for example a small recessive population
who after years grow in number and dominated rest of the darker population on the continent.

Otherwise - it is impossible to happend. Again, thinking only in terms of recessive genes, fogs understanding how genes are selected. Just think that if a genetic function is very popular in a group of people, it means that it had to be selected for important reason. Like colour of skin, or lactose persistence in some populations, but not in others.

Rethel
29-03-15, 02:30
There was no mirracle. Genetic research is telling us that few thousand years ago there was no one looking exactly like modern Europeans.

I dont argue with that statement. It is not only correct by science standards, but
also expected according to archeological evidences, historic records and anthropology.


At the same time we can see many whiter mutations in different communities.

Ok, it could be, but it hasn't to be undependent events.
Source of that could be exchange of women between populations in not observed past.


We see some of them in Swedish HG, other mutations in Samara Russia region, other mutations in Neolithic Farmers. After few thousand years of natural selection, these mutations finally conglomerated in region of Baltic and North Sea.

And this is hocus-pocus, that people from different parts of the world, have similar
independent mutation and all of them came into one place after thousends of years... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif
I don't have so big faith http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif


Simply put, people who had more of these mutations were healthier (didn't lack vitamin D), and had more healthier offspring, busting their survival. The whiter skin folks out-breaded the darker skin ones.

Ok, with that statement i'm perfectly agree.


That's because they live farther south, in stronger UV index zone, and very white mutations of skin are not needed. It is even destructive for population there to be very white and will causes many more cases of cancer, than darker skin.

So... why white even nordic-looking people are still living in the hot
south regions still not dying and not becoming darker by themselves,
and on the other hand dark people are especilly occupied all north and
coldest parts of the world, where sun is the most rare subject on the sky
by half of the year. Don't you see, that this theory doesnt work!?:rolleyes2:


Colour of skin is a balance between getting enough vitamin D and protection from skin cancer, melanin. That's why colour of skin correlates with climatic zones, UV index, plus diet containing D3.

So... why eskimos and yakuts are still alive?:petrified:
And why blond-heired beduins are still alive
in Sahara... Why? They all should be dead! :thinking:


Recessive function kicks in when genes are equal. However if a gene is very important and beneficial for certain populations, this gene becomes dominant by law of natural selection.

But first he must exist and don't die with his first owner.


Again, thinking only in terms of recessive genes, fogs understanding how genes are selected. Just think that if a genetic function is very popular in a group of people, it means that it had to be selected for important reason. Like colour of skin, or lactose persistence in some populations, but not in others.

Hocus-pocus. :rolleyes2:
It doesn't have to be like that. If you have blond and red alleles
in family, it is simply a coincidense which of them will be inherited.
There is not such a thing like dying because of having red hair, or
dying because of not having red hair. This is simple and reasonable.

Fire Haired14
29-03-15, 03:02
Lebrok,
Here's a a detailed analysis of pre-Historic Euros pigmentation markers.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PVpN5zC3vW-FC_IUzFMaf6JI2XezGooJgsoIRagKyy8&authuser=0

Late Neolithic/Bronze age Germans and Hungarians; 4,5000 years ago, would defiantly pass as modern Europeans in skin tone, so a few thousand years ago is too recent. They had more 374F than their ancestors and slightly less than modern North Europeans. Also, Mesolithic Motalas and EHG had no known major dark markers at high frequency. So, there's no confirming evidence EEF introduced a new pale marker to Europe, unless there's undiscovered ones. You're theory about multiple pops giving light genes to Euros still makes sense though.

There's isn't enough knowledge of the science beyond skin color to say Yamna, EEF, etc. were darker than modern Europeans. It's a very good guess they were but that's it. I'd say that most of North European's ancestors 5,000 years ago were of a West Asian or South European tone. We can see in ancient DNA between 3,000-2,000BC markers for light skin and blue eyes rose in frequency but weren't at modern frequencies.

Aberdeen
29-03-15, 04:50
Idiotic remark. Have you even seen a Georgian in your life?

Yes, I've met a few - I live in a country that has immigrants from all around the world. And I've seen many Georgians on television and on the internet. Georgians were all over the evening news a few years ago, having a bit of an disagreement with Russia about where Georgia's borders were.

LeBrok
29-03-15, 08:16
Ok, it could be, but it hasn't to be undependent events.
Source of that could be exchange of women between populations in not observed past. Mutations just happen spontaneously. Most mutations are not good, and mostly people die having them. However, people with positive mutations, mutations which give them any advantage, will always have more kids and over-populate the ones without these positive mutations.




And this is hocus-pocus, that people from different parts of the world, have similar
independent mutation and all of them came into one place after thousends of years... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif
I don't have so big faith http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gifNot different parts of the world, they were all close by in Europe by Neolithic. By invasions, by trading women, or any other way, positive mutations were introduced in the Northern Europe. In Northern Europe, the mutations found the perfect grounds, and rooted in, and multiplied in population.


So... why white even nordic-looking people are still living in the hot
south regions still not dying and not becoming darker by themselves,
and on the other hand dark people are especilly occupied all north and
coldest parts of the world, where sun is the most rare subject on the sky
by half of the year. Don't you see, that this theory doesnt work!?:rolleyes2: White people can live around the planet (these days) by the ways of civilization, They wear cloves to protect skin against UV radiation. Australians, or other colonial British in tropics, wore and wear hats, protection against the sun.
Regardless of their protection, when you check statistics you will find out that Australians white people have most skin cancer cases in the world. Especially when suntanning came fashionable in 80s. Nature tells us that they don't have the best skin colour for that climate.
http://www.australiance.com/images/gallery/people/paul-hogan.gif



So... why eskimos and yakuts are still alive?:petrified:
And why blond-heired beduins are still alive Eskimos and Inuits (people of Arctic) they all consume fresh (uncooked) seal liver, rich in vitamin D3. Liver of mammals is a storage of vitamins and minerals. Having diet like this, rich in vitamin D3, you don't need to suntan to get produce it. They also suntan a lot when possible.



in Sahara... Why? They all should be dead! :thinking:
Look at Bedouins (lighter skin people in Sahara) they all wear cloths from head to toes to protect themselves against strong UV. This is the way they can survive there.
See the difference between suntan grandma and pinck skin baby.
http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/pics/495.jpg



Hocus-pocus. :rolleyes2:
It doesn't have to be like that. If you have blond and red alleles
in family, it is simply a coincidense which of them will be inherited.
There is not such a thing like dying because of having red hair, or
dying because of not having red hair. This is simple and reasonable. Red head is just a sort of transition phase between Blond and Brunet.

LeBrok
29-03-15, 08:21
But first he must exist and don't die with his first owner.
Go back to Mendel law and you will see that even the recessive mutation has a chance to survive, to be expressed. When it does it gives a chance for this positive gene to take off.

Melancon
29-03-15, 09:23
Go back to Mendel law and you will see that even the recessive mutation has a chance to survive, to be expressed. When it does it gives a chance for this positive gene to take off.In a way, I am a bit skeptical of the Natural Selection theory myself. How come Europeans can become fair-skinned; but East Asian Mongoloids who are also fair-skinned because of "Natural Selection" lack mutations for different hair color or eye color?

And if Europeans became fair-skinned in the Neolithic; does this mean that the East Asian Mongoloids also became fair-skinned at the same time?


Would it make better sense that both races developed these mutations during the Ice Age? And I have seen La Brana man and Loschbour man too; and know they had dark skin ... but could this be an error of sorts? They have the blue eyes but not the fair-skin. Yet Asians have fair-skin but no mutations in eye color. bizarre

LeBrok
29-03-15, 09:53
In a way, I am a bit skeptical of the Natural Selection theory myself. How come Europeans can become fair-skinned; but East Asian Mongoloids who are also fair-skinned because of "Natural Selection" lack mutations for different hair color or eye color? They do have one of few European mutations, IIRC, plus more Asian ones.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17o06rvfcwgskjpg/original.jpg




And if Europeans became fair-skinned in the Neolithic; does this mean that the East Asian Mongoloids also became fair-skinned at the same time? Not exactly at same time, and not exactly same mutations. It is actually impassible for two separate populations to get same mutations. And this is actually what we can observer. The populations have lighter skins up North but not necessarily from exact mutations.



Would it make better sense that both races developed these mutations during the Ice Age? And I have seen La Brana man and Loschbour man too; and know they had dark skin ... but could this be an error of sorts? They have the blue eyes but not the fair-skin. Yet Asians have fair-skin but no mutations in eye color. bizarre I don't believe the La Brana was really brown. I think we don't have complete knowledge of all the mutations and their impact on skin colour, therefore can exactly predict. I also think we got some munitions from Neanderthals but after so many years and additional mutations they became unrecognizable as Neanderthal ones. Anyway whatever the colour they were they were not as white as today's Europeans. The general picture of mutations tells us that the Europeans got the whitest recently from conglomeration of all the white skin mutations from all the Northern and Neolithic Peoples in the area.

Maleth
29-03-15, 10:07
Thats nature, bacteria gets resistant to antibiotics for its survival (keeps mutating) (hostile environment for it to keep on surviving), Flu Viruses or any Viruses get resistant to flu vaccine or medication (keeps mutating) (hostile environment for it to keep on surviving), Furry Mammoths developed fur to keep them warm compared to their Asian or African counterparts, birds developed different type of beaks as a tool according to the type of food source they manage to find in the environment.

If our dna is pointing an original spot which takes us to Africa there is no other plausible theory that skin eye and hair colour evolved on the way of the migrating journey unless a group of Albinos decided to run away and make an escape from Africa. Thats the miracle of nature, all living things adapt for survival and humans are nothing more special. We are made up of trillion of cells which have the chemical combination for survival as much as a one celled organism.

Very simple that Blond hair, light eyes and pale skin are nothing more then lack of Melanin and its concentration levels is well known to be UV related so to what other reasons do we have the results we have?

Maleth
29-03-15, 10:18
Look at Bedouins (lighter skin people in Sahara) they all wear cloths from head to toes to protect themselves against strong UV. This is the way they can survive there.
See the difference between suntan grandma and pinck skin baby.
http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/pics/495.jpg




There is much more solar reflection in permanent snow covered area (which could also have much less cloud cover in many such areas) due to reflection then say a forest covered region in cool climates due to the UV absorbance rate from the type of environment and normally heavy cloud cover (higher precipitation) too that goes with it to provide the area with lush green canopies.

Kardu
29-03-15, 11:14
Yes, I've met a few - I live in a country that has immigrants from all around the world. And I've seen many Georgians on television and on the internet. Georgians were all over the evening news a few years ago, having a bit of an disagreement with Russia about where Georgia's borders were.

Show me photos of several Georgians and tell me mix of which races do the look like to you

Rethel
29-03-15, 15:57
Mutations just happen spontaneously. Most mutations are not good, and mostly people die having them. However, people with positive mutations, mutations which give them any advantage, will always have more kids and over-populate the ones without these positive mutations.

Mutation you can have only in one person. If that person die before he mulitply
this mutstion will be dead with him also. And if this is recessive mutation - it can
be vanish very quickly in dominant population.

Look at Iranian plateu and India. Where are these original Aryans with blond
hair and blue eyes... they all vanished, even they were very numerous. Only in
some isolate villages light people still exist or the lighter genes are still present
in general population, but they show themselves very rare - every generation
they become rarer. And they still exist probably only because of later invasions
and colonisations of Greeks, Scythians, or even some slavic slaves. They are not
dead because of sun, but they became fewer because of dominant darker population.
That's all.


Not different parts of the world, they were all close by in Europe by Neolithic.

If this mutations create themselves in different parts undependently, that means
that this happend in different parts of the world - especialy in neolithic, when Europe
it was a whole planet with many different minicivilisations in every isolate village.


By invasions, by trading women, or any other way, positive mutations were introduced in the Northern Europe.

As you see, it could be reasonable. :rolleyes2:


In Northern Europe, the mutations found the perfect grounds, and rooted in, and multiplied in population.

So why Lapps, Nenets, Yakuts and so on, dont became fair by themselves, and why they still exist? :rolleyes2:


White people can live around the planet (these days) by the ways of civilization, They wear cloves to protect skin against UV radiation. Australians, or other colonial British in tropics, wore and wear hats, protection against the sun. Regardless of their protection, when you check statistics you will find out that Australians white people have most skin cancer cases in the world. Especially when suntanning came fashionable in 80s. Nature tells us that they don't have the best skin colour for that climate.


It doesn't proof anything. If they all would be naked, they surly wouldn't die - every one of 20
million, and they surely wouldn't become dark sikinned by themselves. It is simply impossible.


Eskimos and Inuits (people of Arctic) they all consume fresh (uncooked) seal liver, rich in vitamin D3. Liver of mammals is a storage of vitamins and minerals. Having diet like this, rich in vitamin D3, you don't need to suntan to get produce it. They also suntan a lot when possible.

As you see, always you can find an explanation. Fair people in Europe
didn't have enough sun, didn't eat good food... so... they all should be
dead - but they were not... :rolleyes2:


Look at Bedouins (lighter skin people in Sahara) they all wear cloths from head to toes to protect themselves against strong UV.

Another explanation. Always the same.
But... they are not fair by themselves... they are descendants of light european people - and this is only soure of their color.
Yakuts or Lapps, like normal Berbers or regular Bedouins in Levant, are not descendants of european fair people, and this is
only reason, why they are not fair skinned - when Lapps, Yakuts or Berbers met some light people, they absorbed genes and
some of them can be light - no becouse they had mutation, but because they had something new in their gen-pool. Without
that, every one of north populations were dark - hundrets of isolate small tribes. No one of them became fair by their own.
None of them. And light populations in souther countries lived very well - in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia and so on. Only theat
of their existance were war, and mixing with another darker people, and this is only logical and prooved explanation.


This is the way they can survive there.

But you probably on purpouse don't see that this what you want to proof
doesn't work in real, and you don't see that your explanations of that fact
are disproofing your original statement. :rolleyes2:



See the difference between suntan grandma and pinck skin baby.

And? This is only proof, that some recessive genes allready exist in the population,
and they show themselves sometimes. Her dauther did not mutate by her own, and
if she is only one on big population she has zero chance to dominate all continent,
even if there exist some ten more dauthers in another parts of the continent

By the way, as you see, grandma, who becomes a descendant of paleolithic HG
from the north, is still... dark... her ascendants didn't die and didn't become lighter. :useless:

What it is this tribe Sunta?


Red head is just a sort of transition phase between Blond and Brunet.

But having this transition or laking of it, doesn't decide who will be dead and who will be alive.:cool-v:

Aberdeen
29-03-15, 18:39
Show me photos of several Georgians and tell me mix of which races do the look like to you

I don't see what the problem is. Georgians appear to already be the well mixed people of the future that we've been discussing.

Rethel
29-03-15, 20:21
I don't see what the problem is. Georgians appear to already be the well mixed people of the future that we've been discussing.

As we can see: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml there among the Georgians
can live some light people, because 1/5 of the whole male population have indoeuropean ascendents.
So, even if this 19% of them would be albinos' (but it isn't true) still 81% will be dark, so a regular man
from Georgia will be for normal european person darker than himself. Among the links which show me
LeBrok, is showing this map:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7138&d=1425980736

If enyone has any doubts I think this should ended this doubts.
If Kardu you still dont belive us, how we see your contry people,
go with 10 neighours in summer on the sun for whole day, and
after that tell us, how many of you have sun's scalds... Then
you will know how big percentage of Georgians is light... http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/035.gif

Vallicanus
29-03-15, 21:07
I don't see what the problem is. Georgians appear to already be the well mixed people of the future that we've been discussing.

How are Georgians well mixed?

They are Caucasoid and no darker than South Europeans.

Rethel
29-03-15, 21:11
http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/pics/495.jpg



This is a very interesting photo.
It comes from this website: http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/inuit406.html

Those people are Eskimos.
So, they naturaly, have some european admixture.

But though they still have dark pigmentation.
Thoudands of thousands of years of living in the farest
north than european fair people lived didn't lighted them.
Even some european admixture didn't help with that.

On this site we can see another examples of dark people living without sun in cold climate.
What is amazing, they are still alive after thousands of years... in Europe they should be
dead since minimum 5000 years... but in America... everything is possible... :rolleyes2:

Those Eskimos are even darker than I thout.
I always assosiated them with dark eyes and hair.
But they skin is very dark too.

Another examples from LeBrok source:

http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/489h4.jpg
http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/493h4.jpg
http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/498h4.jpg
http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/500h4.jpg
http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/172h4.jpg
http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/529h4.jpg
http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/532h4.jpg
http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/418h4.jpg
http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/455h4.jpg
http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/477h4.jpg

Kardu
29-03-15, 21:26
I don't see what the problem is. Georgians appear to already be the well mixed people of the future that we've been discussing.

You said Georgians look like mixed race people, so I am asking: show us the photos of real Georgians and tell us exactly which races were mixed to give their appearanece. You don't understand this simple question or are you playing dumb?

Rethel
29-03-15, 22:08
Kardu,
do you know one of basic priciple of european civilization?

Nemo iudex in causa sua.

You want be albinoeuropean, follow european priciples.

This, that you don't like my post, or you disagree with my argumentation,
doesn't give you right to giving me warnings because I was writing on the
same topic as you. Did you give yourself warning too?

LeBrok
29-03-15, 22:20
This is a very interesting photo.
It comes from this website: http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/inuit406.html

Those people are Eskimos.
So, they naturaly, have some european admixture.

But though they still have dark pigmentation.
Thoudands of thousands of years of living in the farest
north than european fair people lived didn't lighted them.
Even some european admixture didn't help with that.

On this site we can see another examples of dark people living without sun in cold climate.
What is amazing, they are still alive after thousands of years... in Europe they should be
dead since minimum 5000 years... but in America... everything is possible... :rolleyes2:

Those Eskimos are even darker than I thout.
I always assosiated them with dark eyes and hair.
But they skin is very dark too.

Another examples from LeBrok source:

Before you dive into a deep discussion with people who have spent a lot of time on this subject, please do a lot of reading to understand how genetics and natural selection work. Finding quick pseudo patterns, can only mislead you in a wrong direction. Here is one of the misleading examples.

Look, Europeans are darker than Inuits:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/08/02/article-1299461-0A99C1AE000005DC-401_468x700.jpg


http://www.easier.com/uploads/cache/thumbs/1/0/9/156/400x400/70611/inuits.jpghttp://im.ft-static.com/content/images/e237a83e-1428-11df-8847-00144feab49a.img


Don't you think it is a good idea to stop posting pictures of tanned people for the right comparison of skin colour?

There was a reason why I posted the picture with very suntanned grandmother and lighter skin (natural/untanned) Inuit baby. You missed the clue, didn't you?

Rethel
29-03-15, 22:32
Don't you think it is a good idea to stop posting pictures of tanned people for the right comparison of skin colour?

I show you only examples which disproof theory, that living in the north (and some other
elements associated with that localization) are causing muntations in different places.
It seems fine and sound interesting, but it is unobservable occurrence - and this is the
reason, why I don't belive in spontaniously mutations in different places. Otherwise,
we would have several tribes in the north with fair hair or eyes. But we can observe
something totaly different. Genes don't come from nothing. They must be inherited.

LeBrok
30-03-15, 00:51
I show you only examples which disproof theory, that living in the north (and some other
elements associated with that localization) are causing muntations in different places.
It seems fine and sound interesting, but it is unobservable occurrence - and this is the
reason, why I don't belive in spontaniously mutations in different places. Otherwise,
we would have several tribes in the north with fair hair or eyes.
Fair hair and eyes don't participate in vitamin D production, and are not necessary for people to live in higher latitudes.
Inuit and Eskimo arrival to the Arctic circle is fairly recent of last 3 thousand years. Their whitening process is not complete in such short time. It is possible, giving them few thousand more years, that they also will drift into whiter skin mutations, and could develop light hair and eyes in the process too. The biggest "secret" of how they can survive up North, not having the lightest possible skin, is their diet. When they catch a seal (the main staple of their diet) they always consume fresh uncooked seal liver first. Liver is a storage of vitamin D in mammals. This is how they supplement vitamin D3 from their diet, and don't need to get all of it from the sun. As you noticed from your posted pictures, they spend a lot of time outside producing lots of vitamin D, and tanning in the process. Ozone layer is thin letting UV through up North and lots of radiation bounces from snow. It is not difficult to tan. For long arctic night they have D3 in raw liver supplement.

https://thestarlightwalker.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/screen-shot-2013-10-03-at-1-57-01-pm.png

This map above tells us that South Greenland gets more solar radiation than central Europe, not mentioning Scandinavia and GB.




But we can observe
something totaly different. Genes don't come from nothing. They must be inherited. Mutation of genes come from nothing. They happen spontaneously, by accident, without a purpose. Most of them are bad, people get sick, and die without leaving children. This way the bad mutations are weeded out very quickly, and we don't even learn about most of them. From time to time a mutation happens that make a gene more efficient, or work in a way that benefits people in certain environment. When mutation like this happens it make people more effective, and increase survival of their offspring, and chance of surviving this positive mutation itself. This will happen even if the gene is recessive, just follow Mendel's law of gene expression. Sometimes the gene is not expressed in first generation, but it will be active in second. If the carrier of the gene have good few kids, the recessive gene will be expressed in first generation in couple of them. Then it will grow almost exponentially, as long as the benefit is there in same environment. Change of environment could nil the benefit, or even create disadvantage.
Like when white people go to Africa. They need to wear cloths, hats or use sunscreen. Without this protection they would die out due to melanoma in few generations.



Mutation you can have only in one person. If that person die before he mulitply
this mutstion will be dead with him also. And if this is recessive mutation - it can
be vanish very quickly in dominant population.
Sure. There were many more positive mutations that happened, but due to a bad luck of its carriers, we'll never know about them. I'm sure many with positive mutations died in freaky accidents, floods, killed in wars, before passing them to next generation. It doesn't mean that in some cases the positive mutations survive and spread inside population, benefiting everyone.

Here is a simple thought experiment.
Let's assume that what you say, about recessive genes not having chance to survive, is true. In this case, regardless if you believe in Adam and Eve, or small group of Homo Sapiens Out of Africa, people today would look exactly like the first humans, first parents, who we come from. No mutations, no changes in phenotype of people. The lonely mutations would always be washed off, deleted, over-bread by existing gene pool, according to your hypothesis.
By observable science, and by our own eyes, we can definitely agree that people around the planet are very divers in looks.
How is it possible to have such diversity of looks, if no new mutation took part in it? Did black people came to Europe from Africa, and one day they woke up all Caucasian? They went to Asia and one day woke up looking Asian? And so on on every continent. Somehow miraculously they diversified into races without help of new mutations.

If you are smart enough to understand that existing scientific research can't explain human diversification by mutations and natural selection, perhaps you want to entertain us with alternative hypothesis which make at least remote sense?

Kardu
30-03-15, 01:40
Kardu,
do you know one of basic priciple of european civilization?

Nemo iudex in causa sua.

You want be albinoeuropean, follow european priciples.

This, that you don't like my post, or you disagree with my argumentation,
doesn't give you right to giving me warnings because I was writing on the
same topic as you. Did you give yourself warning too?

Because you are t r o l l i n g!

What albino? what a hell are you talking about? I say every group should preserve their identity, be it European, African or Asian. So stop demagogy now.
I am inclined to believe that you are not Polish, but Russian t r o l l, one of those from hundreds on service of kremlin.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-kremlins-*****-army/375932/

Rethel
30-03-15, 02:31
Fair hair and eyes don't participate in vitamin D production, and are not necessary for people to live in higher latitudes.
Inuit and Eskimo arrival to the Arctic circle is fairly recent of last 3 thousand years. Their whitening process is not complete in such short time. It is possible, giving them few thousand more years, that they also will drift into whiter skin mutations, and could develop light hair and eyes in the process too. The biggest "secret" of how they can survive up North, not having the lightest possible skin, is their diet. When they catch a seal (the main staple of their diet) they always consume fresh uncooked seal liver first. Liver is a storage of vitamin D in mammals. This is how they supplement vitamin D3 from their diet, and don't need to get all of it from the sun. As you noticed from your posted pictures, they spend a lot of time outside producing lots of vitamin D, and tanning in the process. Ozone layer is thin letting UV through up North and lots of radiation bounces from snow. It is not difficult to tan. For long arctic night they have D3 in raw liver supplement.

As you see, theory which you're presenting made and press you to looking for many expenation on every ocasion.
You always need long process for everything - but during that time theory's laws dosen't work, because people are
still living and they don't need for that any positive mutation. Otherwise they will be dead. If in Europe people lived
in thise same conditions, they didn't have need for some positive mutations, because 1) they still lived without that
mutations, 2) people in another places (but even in the same, in Europe) which don't have that mutations are still
good without them. Dark pigmented people are living in every part of the world and even in Europe they are and
were through thousands of years very well. They didn't need in the past and still don't need that fair mutation.
Even if Eskimos are during that process (as you sugest) it isnt provoke by any outside natural process. Why?
because they are alive since many thousand years. Sugesting, that only in Europe people had not enough sun
or they can't find optimal food like eskimos did, is only true in theory, but not in observable world - even not
for Europe, because as we see from ancient genetic markers, in Europe (especialy during Ice Age) darker people
did very well, and they didn't need any light mutation to survive like any other people in the north, and still they
lived in Europe - even in the farest north, like Lapps. By the way, on the first looking it seems that more fair result
from ancient DNA came from more souther places than extreme north - but maybe this is only my selective memory http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif

From historical and archological records compare with genetic evidence, lighter people lived on the eurasian stepp
from Ukraine to Altai, and some parts of european forest present day Russia. South Europe was dark as it today,
West Europe was darker than today, north Eurasia was inhabited by mongoloid HG (uralic people and paleoasian),
only Scandinavia is questionable place, but it seems to be the same.

Why? Coon wrote in some of his works, that oldest people from that region was mediterrenian and paleolithic types.
He didn't know, what pigmentation of this people was. Now we know, that first cro-magnonian people were probably
darker than lighter, that mediterrenian were by definition dark, and we know, that haplogroups I2 (which was original)
belonged to this darker populations. I1 became from south, where lighter types were not original, so this region probably
cannot be homland for that type of pigmantation. Even G2a-bearing group of people is get wind of to be a bearer of some
light pigmentation. But they came deffinitly not from the north.


When mutation like this happens it make people more effective, and increase survival of their offspring, and chance of surviving this positive mutation itself.

I could even agree with that, but as I trying to show you, this light mutations doesn't decide about survival.
People are living through thousends of years without them and they are very well with that lack of miracle. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif

Arctic circle is (rather was) settled by dark haird people in 100%.
And they didn,t have any need for positive light mutation.


Like when white people go to Africa. They need to wear cloths, hats or use sunscreen. Without this protection they would die out due to melanoma in few generations.

Even animals can protect themselves from sun, so I think, that people could do the same in the past. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif
They are not more stupid than animals. I am sure of that. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif


It doesn't mean that in some cases the positive mutations survive and spread inside population, benefiting everyone.

But only in theory, I am affraid.


Let's assume that what you say, about recessive genes not having chance to survive, is true. In this case, regardless if you believe in Adam and Eve, or small group of Homo Sapiens Out of Africa, people today would look exactly like the first humans, first parents, who we come from. No mutations, no changes in phenotype of people. The lonely mutations would always be washed off, deleted, over-bread by existing gene pool, according to your hypothesis.

Let assume. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif
This is much more easier! http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif

In this theory, people came not from Adam and Eve, but from Noah, his three sons and three dauters in law.
So, they could be bearing 12 chromosoms for every genetic information. This pule were combined until they
were split somewhere in Mesopotamia in small patriarchal groups with their own language, they inbred
only inside their small group - and this could give every anthropological type which exist today. Some years
ago (probably) in National geografic I was reading, that group of people who populate Americas have only
70 people. How many language gorups combine with Y-hg and some phisical type egzised? 30? 50? Probably
not much more and some of them are very similar to each other in phisical apperience. So, in this theory
everything is almost perfect, especialy, when one group was lighter than the other. Light genes will not
vanished, when they were in small grup of people who later grow in number and colonized other lands. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/good_job.gif



By observable science, and by our own eyes, we can definitely agree that people around the planet are very divers in looks.
How is it possible to have such diversity of looks, if no new mutation took part in it?

From original gen pool and combination betwen elements of that pool.


Did black people came to Europe from Africa, and one day they woke up all Caucasian?

In that case, it is simple too. As you was somewhere writing, light pigmentation is onli a lacking of pigment. No big deal. It is not a new information, but lack of her.
If this happend in small group who after that grow in number - it is possible, like founder effect. But it is impossible in such huge territory like Europe and decide
by outside natural environment in many places of the continent in large gen-dominant population. In this laking of pigment accident ther is not need for laking of
sun, becouse albino live in Africa too. If they wouldn't be dispersal, you could have albino tribe in Africa as well. And they wouldn't be dead, because no one was
seeing massive albino deads because of the sun shining on the sky. This albino tribe must be very, very stupid and be sitting on the sun without clothing whole
days, day by day - this is illogical and impossible, and disproof your theory, that lacking of sun cousing lacking of pigment. Disproof also that mutation in many
places can dominate population - because albinos in Africa didn't dominate the population, even in one part of that continent. They could of course, but first they
should live together and after that grow in number and replaced totaly black people. It seems to be more planed action than only an accidance.


They went to Asia and one day woke up looking Asian? And so on on every continent. Somehow miraculously they diversified into races without help of new mutations.

As I said above: in small groups which had their own combination of pool of gens. Some were missing some recombind, and after that grown in number.
do you think that for example "mongoloid-looking-feature" mutated and evolved in whole Asia in thousands of black-african-looking communities at the
same time? This would be a miracle indeed... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif


If you are smart enough to understand that existing scientific research can't explain human diversification by mutations and natural selection, perhaps you want to entertain us with alternative hypothesis which make at least remote sense?

No, I don't want, but I strongly claim, that differences can only began to exist in small inbreding population, and enviorment
dosen't have anything to do with that, as I was ilustrate this with many proposals from differnet parts of the eath, and this
must happend with light pigmantation in european population. Some small tribe, whith light pigmentation grow in number and
after that dominate large parts of the continent either in creationist or evolutionary models, and this is most resonable explanation
without any hocus-pocus many places and endless thousands of years coincedences and bad nature environment in my opinion.

Rethel
30-03-15, 02:37
Because you are t r o l l i n g!

And who decide? You, because you don't like my opinion and you are furious about that?


What albino? what a hell are you talking about? I say every group should preserve their identity, be it European, African or Asian. So stop demagogy now.

And I said only, that in eyes of europeans Georgians seems to be preety
dark. Do you want change my observation, because you are furious about
that? This is my opinion, and many others too and you cannot forbid our eyes
see what and how they see. This is not my fault, that you have some complexes
about darker pigmentation. This is your problem, not mine.


I am inclined to believe that you are not Polish, but Russian t r o l l, one of those from hundreds on service of kremlin. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-kremlins-*****-army/375932/

Are you normal or you forget some pills?

LeBrok
30-03-15, 07:14
As you see, theory which you're presenting made and press you to looking for many expenation on every ocasion.
You always need long process for everything - but during that time theory's laws dosen't work, because people are
still living and they don't need for that any positive mutation. Otherwise they will be dead. If in Europe people lived
in thise same conditions, they didn't have need for some positive mutations, because 1) they still lived without that
mutations, 2) people in another places (but even in the same, in Europe) which don't have that mutations are still
good without them.
Not true. From genomes of ancient hunter gathers, who lived in Scandinavia, we know that they were not as light skin as today's Scandinavians. The new mutations made them lighter, better fitting, healthier, having more kids. These new lighter genes spread through population, because they gave them advantage over others. They both could live there with their skin tones, yet the lighter mutations turned to be more beneficial, therefore wide spread today.



Dark pigmented people are living in every part of the world and even in Europe they are and
were through thousands of years very well. They didn't need in the past and still don't need that fair mutation.
Even if Eskimos are during that process (as you sugest) it isnt provoke by any outside natural process. Why?
because they are alive since many thousand years. Sugesting, that only in Europe people had not enough sun
or they can't find optimal food like eskimos did, is only true in theory, but not in observable world - even not
for Europe, because as we see from ancient genetic markers, in Europe (especialy during Ice Age) darker people
did very well, and they didn't need any light mutation to survive like any other people in the north, and still they
lived in Europe - even in the farest north, like Lapps. By the way, on the first looking it seems that more fair result
Give us one example of black tribe who migrated to higher latitudes and survived their. Give us one example of white tribe who went to sub Saharan Africa and survived their. Please, skip colonial times and modern populations, as due to technology, clothing, supplements people of all colour can live everywhere these days.




from ancient DNA came from more souther places than extreme north - but maybe this is only my selective memory http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif

From historical and archological records compare with genetic evidence, lighter people lived on the eurasian stepp
from Ukraine to Altai, and some parts of european forest present day Russia. South Europe was dark as it today,
West Europe was darker than today, north Eurasia was inhabited by mongoloid HG (uralic people and paleoasian),
only Scandinavia is questionable place, but it seems to be the same. Just because they can survive, it doesn't mean that new better mutations can't pop up and give them more advantage in surviving. Again, if skin colour doesn't matter for surviving, why all people on earth are not black, like original out of Africa people? Why did they change if there was no need for a change?


Why? Coon wrote in some of his works, that oldest people from that region was mediterrenian and paleolithic types.
He didn't know, what pigmentation of this people was. Now we know, that first cro-magnonian people were probably
darker than lighter, that mediterrenian were by definition dark, and we know, that haplogroups I2 (which was original)
belonged to this darker populations. I1 became from south, where lighter types were not original, so this region probably
cannot be homland for that type of pigmantation. Even G2a-bearing group of people is get wind of to be a bearer of some
light pigmentation. But they came deffinitly not from the north. From genomes of ancients, we know that whiter mutations showed up relatively recently. They didn't vanish, as you predicted for recessive genes, but conglomerated around Baltic and North Sea. Can you explain why these mutations like this area the most?




I could even agree with that, but as I trying to show you, this light mutations doesn't decide about survival.
People are living through thousends of years without them and they are very well with that lack of miracle. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif It is not only about survival, but about advantage over other people. The most fit. Survival is like a base of something, then you can add up the improvements over the base. People got whiter in Northern Europe, they also got Lactose Persistent genes, and farmer genes from the south. They are all improvements over old hunter gatherer population. Now they can produce more or faster vitamin D3, they can drink raw milk to survive in case crops fail, and being farmers they can feed 10 times bigger population than hunter gatherers. Hunter gatherers could just survive, the new improved Scandinavians are thriving there.


Arctic circle is (rather was) settled by dark haird people in 100%.
And they didn,t have any need for positive light mutation. Not really, there are also blond Sami people in European far North. Regardless, hair colour doesn't really mater. It just might be a side effect of very white mutations. We just don't know why yet.
Again, they can survive now. The new mutations can give them extra advantage.




Even animals can protect themselves from sun, so I think, that people could do the same in the past. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif
They are not more stupid than animals. I am sure of that. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif There is a reason why arctic fox or polar bear don't live in Africa, or crocodiles and elephants in Siberia. All the animal species are adapted well to their environments. Otherwise why not?
Many animals would survive when transplant to foreign environment, granted the new environment is not drastically different. However giving them tens of thousands or a million years they would evolve to fit the environment much better. This is observable in every species, humans included, and also from archaeological sources.



Let assume. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif
This is much more easier! http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif

In this theory, people came not from Adam and Eve, but from Noah, his three sons and three dauters in law.
So, they could be bearing 12 chromosoms for every genetic information. This pule were combined until they
were split somewhere in Mesopotamia in small patriarchal groups with their own language, they inbred
only inside their small group - and this could give every anthropological type which exist today. This is just crazy. I hope you realize that. But for the heck of it, can you give us an example that inbreeding creates variety of looks. All the examples I know points otherwise. Look at secluded tribes in Amazon jungle or New Genie. All the tribe looks like brothers and sisters.




In that case, it is simple too. As you was somewhere writing, light pigmentation is onli a lacking of pigment. No big deal. It is not a new information, but lack of her.
If this happend in small group who after that grow in number - it is possible, like founder effect. But it is impossible in such huge territory like Europe and decide
by outside natural environment in many places of the continent in large gen-dominant population. In this laking of pigment accident ther is not need for laking of
sun, becouse albino live in Africa too. If they wouldn't be dispersal, you could have albino tribe in Africa as well. And they wouldn't be dead, because no one was
seeing massive albino deads because of the sun shining on the sky. This albino tribe must be very, very stupid and be sitting on the sun without clothing whole
days, day by day - this is illogical and impossible, and disproof your theory, that lacking of sun cousing lacking of pigment. Disproof also that mutation in many
places can dominate population - because albinos in Africa didn't dominate the population, even in one part of that continent. They could of course, but first they
should live together and after that grow in number and replaced totaly black people. It seems to be more planed action than only an accidance. I'm having a difficulty following your thoughts. Can you write in more coherent style?




As I said above: in small groups which had their own combination of pool of gens. Some were missing some recombind, and after that grown in number.
do you think that for example "mongoloid-looking-feature" mutated and evolved in whole Asia in thousands of black-african-looking communities at the
same time? This would be a miracle indeed... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif
What pool of genes? They all come from one man and women, Noah and his wife.
Anyway, why genes would go missing or recombine, if by your assumption, they were already surviving fine in environment? If they are surviving, there is no need for any changes, right?



No, I don't want, but I strongly claim, that differences can only began to exist in small inbreding population, and enviorment
dosen't have anything to do with that, as I was ilustrate this with many proposals from differnet parts of the eath, and this
must happend with light pigmantation in european population. Some small tribe, whith light pigmentation grow in number and
after that dominate large parts of the continent either in creationist or evolutionary models, and this is most resonable explanation
without any hocus-pocus many places and endless thousands of years coincedences and bad nature environment in my opinion. What the hell you're rambling about???!!!

Maleth
30-03-15, 09:06
quoting = SUN PROTECTION IN THE SNOW

A bad case of sunburn can be extremely painful and definitely ruin a weekend or holiday in the snow. Even though temperatures may be extremely cold, the potential for sunburn can be very high.
The risk of sunburn is much greater in alpine regions than at sea level because the atmosphere is thinner and less pollution is present to filter out ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Snow can reflect almost 90% of UV radiation so UV rays are much more likely to burn areas such as your chin and nose. end quote

http://www.careinthesun.org/adults/sun-protection-in-the-snow

This is the tundra environment were inuits are found. Central and Northern Europe are temperate Oceanic zones with much more cloud cover higher precipitation that encourages Forest growth (if humans were not present of course) and soil generation (through high level of humus)

The Euro Mediterranean region then is totally different with less cloud cover higher UV but less solar reflection then thundra.

In many areas in North Africa and more soon off the coast the UV is even higher coast cloud cover becomes less and the solar reflaction is higher due to the light coloured terrain (except in some areas in Morroco around the Atlas mountains)

Kardu
30-03-15, 10:41
And who decide? You, because you don't like my opinion and you are furious about that?



And I said only, that in eyes of europeans Georgians seems to be preety
dark. Do you want change my observation, because you are furious about
that? This is my opinion, and many others too and you cannot forbid our eyes
see what and how they see. This is not my fault, that you have some complexes
about darker pigmentation. This is your problem, not mine.



Are you normal or you forget some pills?

It's not opinion but t r o l l i n g

Where did I say anything about the pigmentation of Georgians in the matters discussed in this thread? Or a race for you is only about the skin color? That primitive Nordicisism can't be taken seriously, that's why i suspect you are t r o l l i n g intentionally

Rethel
30-03-15, 12:10
Not true. From genomes of ancient hunter gathers, who lived in Scandinavia, we know that they were not as light skin as today's Scandinavians. The new mutations made them lighter, better fitting, healthier, having more kids. These new lighter genes spread through population, because they gave them advantage over others. They both could live there with their skin tones, yet the lighter mutations turned to be more beneficial, therefore wide spread today.

It is only a theory which is wishful thinking, because you don't have nothing better.
People there were living without that mutation, and still are living very well.
We can repeated the same over and over, but it not have sense.


Give us one example of black tribe who migrated to higher latitudes and survived their.

Black tribe don't migrited, but if some persons do this, they don't die, but mixed with the locals.
The most norther black tribe live in Abckazia. They are still feel very well. They dont die.
In Canada are living some black people too. They are probably still alive.
Eskimos, as you showed me yourselves are quite dark, but they didn't die.
You yourselves wrote, that black pepole came to Europe and colonized her.
They can lived here as blacks because otherwise, they either would be dead in short time, or would return to Africa.
They didn't. So they didn't need this mutation to survive, like Lapps didn't need this muteition for thusands of years either.

So, you have your examples.


Give us one example of white tribe who went to sub Saharan Africa and survived their.

Afrikaners lived very well, and are still alive. They are not dying because of sun.
Some tribe R1b V88 came to Africa and thise people are still alive, but they mixed with black locals.
Lemba tribe did the same. Some greeks are still living in Juba in Suoth Sudan.
Many Nordics are living in Rif, Kabylia, even in Sahara. They are still alive.... can you belive in that?!


Please, skip colonial times and modern populations, as due to technology, clothing, supplements people of all colour can live everywhere these days.

So, you have only a theory, which cannot be proofed, because no one ever was eye witness to whole this miracoules thousands of years...
But you still have people, who lived through this thousands of years and didn't have light mutations, and are still good. So, you must invite
fish, winds, diet and so on... but this is not reasonable, because by naked eye it is seeing, that they dont't need light mutation to survive,
and they didn't need this in paleolithic times through thousands of years either. This is totaly usefull theory and problem creating of nothing.
So, this multitude explanations are explanations of non existing problem. It is only problem for evolutionists, which must find some mulitiply
conspiracy theory because thay have this a little paranoic idea fix to explain everything from nothing always because of some need and use.


Just because they can survive, it doesn't mean that new better mutations can't pop up and give them more advantage in surviving. Again, if skin colour doesn't matter for surviving, why all people on earth are not black, like original out of Africa people? Why did they change if there was no need for a change?

Why you are always repeated that maust be some reason and need for changing?
If ther would be always a reason, then Indians would be totqaly diffrent, but they
all are the same - even Eskimos are the same colour as Amazonian Indians. Why???!
Why all north was/is populated by dank eyed i dark hired man, all of them have darker
(even a little) skin than nordics? Why mongoloids are living almost in every latitude, and
why south America isnt natural negroid continent? Where is you theory in that places?
Of course you must find (and you will!) some another explanation only because theory
must be right! Always! http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif


From genomes of ancients, we know that whiter mutations showed up relatively recently. They didn't vanish, as you predicted for recessive genes, but conglomerated around Baltic and North Sea. Can you explain why these mutations like this area the most?

Because a people who lived there had this genes in their genom.
And if I explained it to you couple of times, if such mutations have
a place it had to be in very smoll population, and after that that
small population spread and dominate another populations.

By the way, why you everything must explain. In mutations there is no reason.
In albinism in africa is not reason at all. But it exist. And because it is rare, it
cannot dominate the population. If you take every albiono people together
you will have a pretty large tribe. And you don't need thousends of years.
By the way, through many years scientists were writing a fairy tales that blond
mutated hundrets of thousenads of years, they were creating many nonsensical
theories, and now it is known that blond mutation has... 5000 years...
so as you can see, all this theories are worth nothing.


It is not only about survival, but about advantage over other people.

So tell me, how mutations hg R advantage almost every other mutations in the world?
What is special in that mustation, that is most spreading mutation in the world? Expain
it by only natural elements without human action. I beg you, explain me this...


they also got Lactose Persistent genes,

I still don't have it, and I am alive after thousands of years... and I drink milk sometimes... this is miracle! http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/petrified.gif


and farmer genes from the south. They are all improvements over old hunter gatherer population. Now they can produce more or faster vitamin D3, they can drink raw milk to survive in case crops fail, and being farmers they can feed 10 times bigger population than hunter gatherers. Hunter gatherers could just survive, the new improved Scandinavians are thriving there.

No, no, no!
They simple had better knowledge and more food because of that knowledge, and as a result, they were more numeriuos.


Not really, there are also blond Sami people in European far North.

They are blond, not because they eveolved, but because they mixed with Nordics from the south.
Don't try to pretend that you dont know that! http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/thinking.gif


Regardless, hair colour doesn't really mater.

Now it doesn't matter...? http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/petrified.gif
You was the one, who said that it matters, because the people could survive because of that color... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/confused.gif


It just might be a side effect of very white mutations. We just don't know why yet.
Again, they can survive now. The new mutations can give them extra advantage.

So it matter or not?
Decide about survival or not?
Have a reason or not?


There is a reason why arctic fox or polar bear don't live in Africa, or crocodiles and elephants in Siberia. All the animal species are adapted well to their environments. Otherwise why not?

Black animals in arctica couldn't survive because they were good seeing... and people or predators can easly see and kill them.
Another reason is that, that they could be create on purpose to live in that envirornment. But people don't have need for a special
mascarade to survive, because they can survive everywhere where it is possible for man - it doesn't matter how he is coloured.


Many animals would survive when transplant to foreign environment, granted the new environment is not drastically different. However giving them tens of thousands or a million years they would evolve to fit the environment much better. This is observable in every species, humans included, and also from archaeological sources.

Not better, they either can survive or not. If they cant, they dont. Million of years it is to long to survive in bad enviroments. Look at Dinosaurs! They coudnt survive... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/laughing.gif
Humans... they are diffrent. They can create their own enviroment to survive. Otherwise Eskimos would be dead by now - they dont have sun, and they dont have blond hair...

This is just crazy. I hope you realize that. But for the heck of it, can you give us an example that inbreeding creates variety of looks. All the examples I know points otherwise.

You wanted this example, so I explained it to you.
You want next example... hmmm.. tell me, how were created all races of dogs?
Why greyhound looks totaly diffrent that yorkshire terrier?
How many milions of years was past to create such a diffrent types of dogs if every one comes from one kind of dogs?
And how many positive mutations necessary to survival have Chihuahua or YorkshireTerrier? http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/laughing.gif


Look at secluded tribes in Amazon jungle or New Genie. All the tribe looks like brothers and sisters.

Yes! because they have the same gene pool.
One small tribe without any other variety which give the beginning of that people.
If at the beginning fisrt population would be mixed withe many varieties, then next tribes could be differet from each other.
And this happend in whole earth long time ago, so, next subtribes cannot change their limited genom pool.
And this is olso proof, that change doesnt come from nothing and dont create itselves.


I'm having a difficulty following your thoughts. Can you write in more coherent style?

Im trying :)


What pool of genes? They all come from one man and women, Noah and his wife.

And their sons had a children with whom?
And who said that:
- Noah had children only with one wife,
- that wife of Noah looks exactly the same as Noah,
- that they all have only AA type of gens?

Dauther in laws of Noah came from another people.
They could looks totaly different.


Anyway, why genes would go missing or recombine, if by your assumption, they were already surviving fine in environment? If they are surviving, there is no need for any changes, right?

Not right. This is your theory, not mine.
There is no need to a reason.
Blond or red hair does not decide about survival.
Only blind or deaf man cannot see or hear this.
To hunt a mammoth you dont need bolnd hair.
To invade another tribe - you don't need blond hair.
And as I show you, people without blond hair lived very well in the same environment.
The need for changes, aspecially for bond or blue eyes does not exist.
It is only a fantasy for theory which must explain why and for what.
But ther was no "why", and any "for what".
Hemophilia has no use and reason, but still exist.
Or maybe you can explain, why evolution evolved such a thing, for what reason? http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif

Rethel
30-03-15, 12:15
Kardu,
you are simply silly.

You still jugde in your own case.

How many warnings do you want give me because of your comlexes?
You dont like me? Dont read me.

You were asking about Georgians, why I and Aberdeen were thinking as we thinking.
I answered you - so you should give yourselves warnings for asking, not me for because I answered you.

Is there some anothers administrators on this forum who can do something whith that?

Kardu
30-03-15, 12:30
Kardu,
you are simply silly.

You still jugde in your own case.

How many warnings do you want give me because of your comlexes?
You dont like me? Dont read me.

You were asking about Georgians, why I and Aberdeen were thinking as we thinking.
I answered you - so you should give yourselves warnings for asking, not me for because I answered you.

Is there some anothers administrators on this forum who can do something whith that?

So what did I exactly ask, you little t r o l l?

LeBrok
30-03-15, 19:06
It is only a theory which is wishful thinking, because you don't have nothing better. What I'm saying, is supported by many research in skin colour in climatic zones, diet, production of vitamin D3, and skin cancer. All of the body of research point to correlation and causation of these factors. It is a complete theory, which can explain every instance of human skin tone. Therefore it is the right one. That's how science work.

On other hand, we have a hodgepodge of your ideas which invoke supernatural forces or unproven phenomena to exist in order to justify them, and fails to consolidate known knowledge in a coherent hypothesis.




People there were living without that mutation, and still are living very well.
We can repeated the same over and over, but it not have sense. Again, it doesn't stop or disprove future improvements/mutations. Just because you say that improvements are not needed, it doesn't stop them. Unless you have powers of god.




Black tribe don't migrited, but if some persons do this, they don't die, but mixed with the locals.
The most norther black tribe live in Abckazia. They are still feel very well. They dont die. Except few very old pictures, there are no Blacks in Abkhazia today. Died out?
According to your premise, white skin is recessive, so black skin colour should spread in population and dominate white locals. It didn't happen, therefore it is wrong.


In Canada are living some black people too. They are probably still alive. Mostly new arrivals, not many who emigrated hundred years ago.
Besides, I never said they dye right away. What happens is that, they are not the healthiest people from the lack of vitamin D, and are dying sooner with fewer children than lighter skin people. It also depends how long time they spend in the sun to produce D3, in recent years all the milk and other products are fortified with D3 to prevent deficiencies. Most affected are pregnant women and their babies.

Thanks to new technology we don't know how bad it used to be, and why our parents and grandparents were taking fish liver oil/tran regularly. If not they could get rickets.
http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/262348/350wm/M2500038-Rickets-SPL.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickets

This is in case you don't know how important is D3 to our health. It is an eye opener, so please read.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/05/28/vitamin-d-deficiency-signs-symptoms.aspx




Eskimos, as you showed me yourselves are quite dark, but they didn't die. Either you are blind or have over hyper fantasy.


You yourselves wrote, that black pepole came to Europe and colonized her. You don't understand what you read. I said Black people left Africa, I never said they lived in Europe.




Afrikaners lived very well, and are still alive. They are not dying because of sun.
Some tribe R1b V88 came to Africa and thise people are still alive, How came they are alive now, if it happened thousands of years ago? Do you realize how backward your logic is?


but they mixed with black locals.
Lemba tribe did the same. Some greeks are still living in Juba in Suoth Sudan. Only Y chromosome survived, not the white people. Autonomously they all are like any other locals.


Many Nordics are living in Rif, Kabylia, even in Sahara. They are still alive.... can you belive in that?! Why shouldn't I. It was me who said that thanks to clothing and technology people can live everywhere these days, didn't I? Please read with comprehension.



Why you are always repeated that maust be some reason and need for changing?
If ther would be always a reason, then Indians would be totqaly diffrent, but they
all are the same - even Eskimos are the same colour as Amazonian Indians. Again, you are either blind or a liar. The darkest American Natives are from Mexican plateau where radiation is strongest in America. The lightest are the Inuits. It is in agreement with UV radiation map I posted above.



Because a people who lived there had this genes in their genom.
And if I explained it to you couple of times, if such mutations have
a place it had to be in very smoll population, and after that that
small population spread and dominate another populations. Explain again why we have so diverse populations of people if we started from one small group? I would like to noticed that you failed to give even one real life example of diversity coming from a small group of people.

On other hand the "positive/advantageous mutation in relation with environment" theory eloquently explains why people are different around the plant. That's how science works.


By the way, why you everything must explain. In mutations there is no reason. Because this is how science works! Everything needs to be explained in order to understand how it works. If you fallowed the science I wouldn't need to lose my time to explain how things work.




In albinism in africa is not reason at all. But it exist. That's a perfect example of mutations popping up randomly. In this case it is not a positive mutation and people don't live too long with it or their kids. It is weeded out quickly.



And because it is rare, it
cannot dominate the population. Not because it is rare, but because it is a bad mutation. People don't live too long with it. How many times I have to explain that there are good and bad mutations, advantage versus disadvantage in environment.


So tell me, how mutations hg R advantage almost every other mutations in the world?
What is special in that mustation, that is most spreading mutation in the world? Expain
it by only natural elements without human action. I beg you, explain me this... Humans are nature, and humans actions are nature too.
Obviously there was an advantage involved in it. We don't know exactly which one yet.




I still don't have it, and I am alive after thousands of years... and I drink milk sometimes... this is miracle! http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/petrified.gif Ridiculous statement. Don't compare your life to life of people in middle ages or anywhere in history. We live now in unique times, especially in the West, where no one dies of hunger anymore. This never happened in human history.
If you were dying of hunger you would even try to chew wood, but unlike milk, wood wouldn't give you calories to survive.





Now it doesn't matter...? http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/petrified.gif
You was the one, who said that it matters, because the people could survive because of that color... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/confused.gif
Colour of the skin. Read with comprehension.



Black animals in arctica couldn't survive because they were good seeing... and people or predators can easly see and kill them. I have no idea what you say here.



Not better, they either can survive or not. If they cant, they dont. Million of years it is to long to survive in bad enviroments. Look at Dinosaurs! They coudnt survive... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/laughing.gif The environment changed quickly due to a big disaster, hit of a comet, huge volcanic activity or something like this. 80% of species survived this catastrophe anyway, with crocodiles, sharks, mammals, and many birds which are actually feathered dinosaurs.
I'm sure you realize how life on earth changed even in last 10 million years. Almost all animals evolved and changed, with hominids included. It is impossible to explain without new mutations and natural selection.


Humans... they are diffrent. They can create their own enviroment to survive. Otherwise Eskimos would be dead by now - they dont have sun, Wasn't it you who posted Eskimo with suntanned faces? Now you claim they don't have sun? I'm sure I mentioned couple of times already that they supplemented vitamin D with raw liver diet. The vital information which you chose to ignore.



You wanted this example, so I explained it to you.
You want next example... hmmm.. tell me, how were created all races of dogs?
Why greyhound looks totaly diffrent that yorkshire terrier?
How many milions of years was past to create such a diffrent types of dogs if every one comes from one kind of dogs?
And how many positive mutations necessary to survival have Chihuahua or YorkshireTerrier? http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/laughing.gif
Dogs has been bread by people for about 30 thousand years, by way of allowing only bread dogs with traits selected by people. Mutations still happen blindly, but People act as positive selection force for these mutations, choosing the dogs they like. Change people with environment and you can understand how natural selection works. Many breads of dogs would not survive in wild. They only exist thanks to human help.



Yes! because they have the same gene pool.
One small tribe without any other variety which give the beginning of that people.
If at the beginning fisrt population would be mixed withe many varieties, What many varieties?!!! They come from same parents and grandparents. They are all the same. In your hypothesis the variety always shows up from nothing, lol. Change your miracle with spontaneous positive and negative mutations and you will understand how nature works.
This is not



And their sons had a children with whom?
And who said that:
- Noah had children only with one wife,
- that wife of Noah looks exactly the same as Noah,
- that they all have only AA type of gens?

Dauther in laws of Noah came from another people.
They could looks totaly different.
Then go back to Adam and Eve and try to explain. You would need to assume that god create black Adam and white Eve, to accommodate all colour of skin without evoking positive and negative mutations to exist. Also they would already have genes for lactose persistence, malaria resistance and sickle cell anemia, and all other existing variety of genes. Their genome would need to be 100 times bigger to accommodate all the varieties. This is nuts.



Not right. This is your theory, not mine.
There is no need to a reason.
Blond or red hair does not decide about survival.To hunt a mammoth you dont need bolnd hair. Actually, blond hair and light eyes can give a better camouflage for hunting in the snow. It is just an idea. Nobody cared to make a hypothesis out of it. Or as well it might be a side effect of many whitening genes.
I'm not sure why you bringing hair colour to the equation when we are arguing about effects of skin colour on surviving of people.



Hemophilia has no use and reason, but still exist. neither albinism in Africa. These are examples that mutations happen all the time. In both examples the mutation is not beneficial and dies out quickly with individual. If they were beneficial we would see most of population being albino and hemophiliac. I hope this is simple enough to finally grasp the science behind it.

Mutations happen all the time even in adults. Bad mutations are a reason behind all cancers. This is a scientific fact.
Either you want to understand the world, or live in you fantasy world. Your choice.

Rethel
30-03-15, 20:32
Le Brok, topic is huge, multithreadical, and has no longer sense to disscuse, because we can over
and over repeat the same, and as you see I have some difficulties whith clear express my thoughts.

Reasuming, I affirm, that:

- Light pigmentation doesn't need a reason to exist.
- Non light people were living from thousands of years in enviroment, in which they shouldn't, and they don't need that mutation.
- This mutation had chance to survive and dominate large area if it happend in small group of people which later grow in number and was more numeriuos that darker tribes.
- We can observe laking of light pigmentation when fair population mixed with darker - they don't die, as you trying to suggest, but ther're mixing and assimilated.
- So called many places, thousand of years and so on - it have no sense at all, because that what can be observe are disproving that statement.

And I don't uderstand, why you are upset with possibility, that mutation "evolved" in small population and after that
were spread, if you are strongly belivieng that this could happend in many places at the same time. This is illogocal.
Many places are good, because they are many, and one place is bad, because is one...

sparkey
30-03-15, 20:58
Is there some anothers administrators on this forum who can do something whith that?

Mods & admins are currently reviewing moderation privileges of elite members, who are supposed to be special users but not moderators. That said, Kardu's warnings have been justified from my perspective; most moderators would have given at least a warning for "Are you normal or you forget some pills?"; please avoid insults like that. We will not be removing the warnings.

Rethel
31-03-15, 12:13
I must return to some parts, because I see,
that I was misunderstand - partialy on porpose.


What I'm saying, is supported by many research in skin colour in climatic zones, diet, production of vitamin D3, and skin cancer. All of the body of research point to correlation and causation of these factors. It is a complete theory, which can explain every instance of human skin tone. Therefore it is the right one. That's how science work.

I didn't say that this is not true. Only I showed you, that people are existing thousands of years againts these factors.
And this is not contradictionary even with evolutionism, because these people were and still are living. Even in this one
particular (evolutionery) system of thinking not every mutation must have a purpose and must be needed. Thats all.

I have an impresion, that you pretend to not get it, because you are simply to much focused on this miracously "thousands of
years and many spontanical mutations in many places at similar time". So, why it did not happen earlier, but after the Ice Age,
after climate changed, and why in this time? It would be much better if it would happen a hundrets of times during the circa
forty thaosands years of existing people in Europe during the Ice Age...

As you prooved yourself, such a thing like lack of sunlight could be recompensate by food. So blondism is not needed.
How many years people lived in Europe in your favorite theory? 50.000 years? So through most than 90% of that huge
period of time they were very well without sun and blond hair. Even the climate was much worse than that in last 5k years.
Probably through this earlier 45k years people could figure it out how to survive in such extremal bad environment, and they
didn't forget about that recently about 5000 years ago when they got even more sun than through earlier 45.000 years,
when they were nonpale, and still today, not everyone is blond or redhead or paleskin.

Probably somewhere in this forum I was reading, that even in Middle Ages most of Europeans were still more tawny
than today. So this must be a real miracle - because climate through last 5000 years was not only warmer than in
previous 45.000, but in Middle Ages were probably one of wamest and sunest times in that long period of time.
So, this mutation wasn't helpfull in survival as claim theory.

And all this do not contradict with evolution (if you wish so blindly belive in that kind of nature process).


On other hand, we have a hodgepodge of your ideas which invoke supernatural forces or unproven phenomena to exist in order to justify them, and fails to consolidate known knowledge in a coherent hypothesis.

I dont know exactly what you talking about, but it is not to hard to enumerate "scientific" theories which were
"very rational" and "prooved by scientific methods" until they were prooved to be totaly wrong or even humbug.

I dont have obligation to belive in every theory which is made.
I have only obligation belive in facts.

As I was mention before, some years ago, were couple theories about how blond and red colours of hair became to exist, and when did it happend.
All of them are now wrong. This were fantasies, which were produced by scientists. Always I was reading and hearing, that ~5000 years (or even
twice much as that) it is to short time to evolved anything, especially some kind of human anthropological type (what you seem to still affirm), but
now, I read that light genes became to existence about 5000 years ago and dominated population recently not so long ago... a couple hundred
of years ago... So as you see yourself, not everything (what is based on this mithologicaly "many places and hundrets of thousands of years) is true.

I'm not a scientist, I'm even not a specialist - but like any other man, I don't have obligation to belive in every theory which is published.
In that case I dont belive in "many places in one time", but in one place where lived inbred small population. As Angela wrote, someone
published such thing like this: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31055-Ice-Age-Europeans-On-Brink-Of-Extinction So even your evolitionist guru's also belive in small
groups of people which lived in the past, so why if I belived in this also (maybe a little bigger groups), you don't allow me?


Again, it doesn't stop or disprove future improvements/mutations. Just because you say that improvements are not needed, it doesn't stop them. Unless you have powers of god.

But I never said that mutations don't exist!


Except few very old pictures, there are no Blacks in Abkhazia today. Died out?

They don't die out, but mixed with the locals.


According to your premise, white skin is recessive, so black skin colour should spread in population and dominate white locals. It didn't happen, therefore it is wrong.

And this is how you disprooved your own theory!!!
Because this is your theory, not mine! Even worse, because your theory is about recessive genes! http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/2smiech.gif
You are beliving, that single people in couple of places with white genes dominated darker population.
As you see, a whole group of people with dominant genes couldn't do that!
Why you dont listen me, but rather discuse with yourself? http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif

I was always saying, that this goup of negors must not mix with locals, grow in number, and when they would be more
numeriuos than their neibours, then they could dominate population. What is untrue, unreasonable and illogical in that?!

Can you be for a moment not blindly focused on your mithological way of evolving?


Thanks to new technology we don't know how bad it used to be, and why our parents and grandparents were taking fish liver oil/tran regularly. If not they could get rickets.

Of course, but not everyone.
But still, 45.000 or more years in europe, and whole time in other parts in cold climate zone, people were living without white pigmentation, and still are...
This is a fact.


Either you are blind or have over hyper fantasy.

Not so hyper fantasy as you, who should belive, that there should live 100% of blond eskimos.
None of them ares fair (without european admixture) and the same refer to every other arctic tribe along with whole arctic circle.
You must be really blind not to see this...http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif


You don't understand what you read. I said Black people left Africa, I never said they lived in Europe.

Maybe you don't, but scientists did.
However you don't said that in Europe were livind only fair people through whole history either.
So, you agree that in Europe through thousands of years were living at least swarthy people.


How came they are alive now, if it happened thousands of years ago? Do you realize how backward your logic is?

They mixed with local people, and you know abot that very well.
Why you still are trying pretend, that such things didn't happend?
Untrue dosen't proof your evolution of blond people theory at all...


Only Y chromosome survived, not the white people. Autonomously they all are like any other locals.

This chromosome, probably came from dead people who were killed by evolution process.
Black women cut of Y chromosome from dead bodies and exchange chromosomes of their sons or husbands...

There must were really very advanced science to do that!http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/2smiech.gif



Why shouldn't I.

Because your theory don't allow them :)


It was me who said that thanks to clothing and technology people can live everywhere these days, didn't I? Please read with comprehension.

And when I am talking about such things, why you don't allow me and you're talking about some evolution fairy tails?

Why you dont see, that people lived in arctic zones because of their technology, and the same was with domination of pale people in later times?


Again, you are either blind or a liar. The darkest American Natives are from Mexican plateau where radiation is strongest in America. The lightest are the Inuits. It is in agreement with UV radiation map I posted above.

Do you want make a gallery from that thread?

About eskimos, you yourself prooved me, that they are tawny.
Before your proof, I was never mentioned that before.
And even paler ones, are still dark haired and dark eyed.
I suppose, that this paler one, comes from not only european
admixture, but from newer asian migrations from syberia.
But every one of Indian zones had very tawny people as for our european averege.
Differences between indigenuos people of Americas are very small.
And now I know, that Eskimos are tawner too... thanks. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/good_job.gif


Explain again why we have so diverse populations of people if we started from one small group? I would like to noticed that you failed to give even one real life example of diversity coming from a small group of people.

If all people of the world would be totaly mixed - in their genom pool would be probably everything.
Then, when they would be divided in small inbred groups of people and by some generations have the
same number of people, or even smaller, then every one of this group will be different, because some
of genes would be lost - differet genes would be lost in different populations, and that would create
a differences in apperiance - which are not so numeriuos and big, as it seems to be. It is only a small
fraction of permille of or genes.


On other hand the "positive/advantageous mutation in relation with environment" theory eloquently explains why people are different around the plant. That's how science works.

No, that's how theory works, which must be a perpetum mobile for every accident, possibility and ocasion.


Because this is how science works! Everything needs to be explained in order to understand how it works. If you fallowed the science I wouldn't need to lose my time to explain how things work.

If you fallowed the science, you would know, that science can explain how something (what allready exist) works, looks and what attributes has. And only that.
Science cannot explain by scientific methods how something came to exist, if have not opportunity to observe that process. This is the reason why science
have need to create over and over again theories about how something happend, which mostly are falces - and it was the same with blond hair theories wich all were wrong in the past.

For science is the best doing about what is now and how it works, but not produce fantasies about how this became to exist (mostly from nothing).

If you would know this, you wouldn't need to lose your time as well as mine too...


That's a perfect example of mutations popping up randomly. In this case it is not a positive mutation and people don't live too long with it or their kids. It is weeded out quickly.

I didn't chose that example because this is desise, but to ilustrate basic mendelic priciple.
You are to inteligent to not understand this, and you create that problem for purpose.
I could chose people with very big or small noses and it would be the same.
If they are one on ten thousand in dominant population, they never dominate whole continent.
But if we gather them together, they could create a big inbred populatin and after that dominate continent.


Not because it is rare, but because it is a bad mutation. People don't live too long with it. How many times I have to explain that there are good and bad mutations, advantage versus disadvantage in environment.


I choose albono people, only to ilustrate, and because they look similar.
I didn't thought, that you would be so malicious, to change the point...
Maybe, if you think that light-skinism is similar negative and disaterous
mutations, as albinism, then ok.

But I don't think, that you are thinking like that...



. Humans are nature, and humans actions are nature too.
Obviously there was an advantage involved in it. We don't know exactly which one yet.

Sorry, but this is realy good joke... http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/2smiech.gif

And why my theory about "white gens" is bad, and your about R1 not?
Why human actions couldnt spread a "white genes" or mutation from
one place to the rest of the continent, exactly by the same way as this
was happend whith mutation called R1? Why? :petrified:


Ridiculous statement. Don't compare your life to life of people in middle ages or anywhere in history. We live now in unique times, especially in the West, where no one dies of hunger anymore. This never happened in human history.
If you were dying of hunger you would even try to chew wood, but unlike milk, wood wouldn't give you calories to survive.

No, this statement is really ridiculous, because only a small percentige today living people (in Europe also) have that mutation,
and - as your point of view suggest - it should be much more rarer in the past. So, huge majoryty of people lived without that
mutation, and they didn't extinct. Humanity didn't survived because of that mutation, even in Middle Ages or during famine.
This is not true.


Almost all animals evolved and changed, with hominids included. It is impossible to explain without new mutations and natural selection.

So even if this wouldn't be true - either in particular case or general - you have no other choice, but only blindly follow that rule... http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/sad-2.gif


Wasn't it you who posted Eskimo with suntanned faces?

No, Not I.
Especially not in the middle of the winter, when there is almost not sun at all...

You are begin terryfing me... I am worry about you... really.


I'm sure I mentioned couple of times already that they supplemented vitamin D with raw liver diet. The vital information which you chose to ignore.

I don't ignor that!
You ignore that, because you think, that only people in Europe, after 45.000 of survival, were so dump, that they couldn't find right food too...
Lapps could, Eskimos could, Ugrofinns could, paleoasiatics could, Indians could - but Europeans living in warmer zones couldn't, after they
survive 45.000 years in much much worse environment... and their neighbours through next 4000-5000 years could do the same in Europe,
but dumm blondes clouldn't... I'm very courius, what happend to the brains of blond people, that they suddenly canot found or buyed optimal
food for themselves even when most of darker countryman could...


Dogs has been bread by people for about 30 thousand years, by way of allowing only bread dogs with traits selected by people.

I don't know what is so funny, because 1) not for 30.000 years, because dog's races are much mor younger, and 2) why very small group of dogs
can produce new race, and small group of people - cannot? because you said so? I thought, that genetic laws work the same way for everyones.
You really don't want understand so simple things on purpose - and I cannot understand why?


Mutations still happen blindly,


but

http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/rolleyes.gif


What many varieties?!!! They come from same parents and grandparents. They are all the same. In your hypothesis the variety always shows up from nothing, lol.

Dogs came form pra-dog or wolf.
From where during last 1000 years or even much less, came hundrets of varietis of dogs?
From nothing, or they so quickily muteted?


Change your miracle with spontaneous positive and negative mutations and you will understand how nature works.
This is not

Did I ever said, that mutations doesn't happend?


Then go back to Adam and Eve and try to explain. You would need to assume that god create black Adam and white Eve, to accommodate all colour of skin without evoking positive and negative mutations to exist. Also they would already have genes for lactose persistence, malaria resistance and sickle cell anemia, and all other existing variety of genes. Their genome would need to be 100 times bigger to accommodate all the varieties. This is nuts.

So, I see, that you allread close your mind for any other possibility.
Only one theory - even if is disproofed in same cases - is right always, even if is wrong.
This is sectarian thinking, not science.


Actually, blond hair and light eyes can give a better camouflage for hunting in the snow.

If this mutations happend in lats 5-6 thousand years, so what are you talking about!!!!!!!!?????????????????????

This is absurde!

5000 years ago people already cultivated corn, they build houses, and wearing clothes - which weren't a good camouflage on the snow!

They should hunt naked in the winter during Ice Age when temprature was like in Yakutia!
But even then, they were tawny or at the begining - black!

And red hair - this one hunter who had this mutation would be seeing from very large distant.

Sorry, but you're began talking nonsens, only because your belive must become true.
And this is science?! http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/petrified.gif


It is just an idea.

Uff, so I must partialy say: sorry. :)


Nobody cared to make a hypothesis out of it. Or as well it might be a side effect of many whitening genes.

So if no one knows why, so why are you so opposed to idea of small goup who grow in number whith that mutation?


I'm not sure why you bringing hair colour to the equation when we are arguing about effects of skin colour on surviving of people.

No, we were (and I hope still are) talking about how european people became light: incuding skin, hair and eyes.

I claim simply, that it was in small group of people without any need and reason. That's all.


Either you want to understand the world, or live in you fantasy world. Your choice.

And what, if this "real world" are talking and teaching a nonsens?
Do you really wish me to belive in every nonsensical theory, only because some scentists said so?! :petrified:
Even, if I see, that it doesn't work in real?

This is more similar to some sectarian cult, than to science... :rolleyes2:

For example, when I was little, in real world as a scientific fact was, that american economy is much worse than soviet.
If some one was thinking otherwise, he not only was living in fantasy world as you said, but could go to prison.
So, scientists can proove many things - it doesn't mean, that this is true, that it is not a fantasy, because about
scientific fantasies it is possible to write dozens of fat books begining from hairy and stupid neanderthals or maybe
from man from Piltdown... or maybe from phlogiston theory or mayby caloric theory... it was real science not fantasy...
http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/2smiech.gif

LeBrok
01-04-15, 18:56
I claim simply, that it was in small group of people without any need and reason. That's all.If there was no reason for a change they would be still black with flat noses and other negroid traits. If there was no reason in selection of mutations we would have body parts, which wouldn't have a purpose. So far every thing we have has a purpose.
White skin produces 10 times more vitamin D3 than black skin in same UV light. How convenient when living in Northern Europe in weak sun radiation.



For example, when I was little, in real world as a scientific fact was, that american economy is much worse than soviet.
If some one was thinking otherwise, he not only was living in fantasy world as you said, but could go to prison.
So, scientists can proove many things - it doesn't mean, that this is true,

Here is your problem. You don't know what scientific fact is. Scientific fact is an observation or an idea which was confirmed by many times by independent scientists. Copernicus heliocentric theory was confirmed again and again by many, and it is a scientific fact. So was genetic programming and double helix theory, confirmed by many independent scientists around the planet.
On other hand, existence of a god(s) hypothesis was never proven and it is not a scientific fact, or existence of yeti or parallel universe.


So, scientists can proove many things - it doesn't mean, that this is true,
If scientists can proof again and again it is a scientific fact. Some things are tricky and take a long time to prove or disprove, but another good side of science is that science is self correcting. Meaning that, if some theories seams right at the beginning, given enough time and enough experiments the truth will persevere, and science will self correct, proving or disproving hypothesis and correct some theories.

Rethel
01-04-15, 20:34
If there was no reason for a change they would be still black with flat noses and other negroid traits.

1) Personally I don't belive that they were 100% negroids form most hot and dry place of Africa - but it doesnt matter in that discussion.
2) Can you please for a moment imagine this what I'm trying tell you (I know that my english is bablle, but still.. http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/0winked.gif )

If this mutation happend in small imbreding population (presume from two to ten times bigger as much like this group of Indians who colinized America) and in this small group this light mutation were preserved. And by coincidence, person who has this mutation, have many descendats who was still inbreading in this small group of people. So what would happen then? This mutation have a chacne to dominate this population - and if during this process we would have some deasises or war and by simply coincidence more lighter people were alive than darker - so we have light population, who after that grow in number and invaded smaller populations, conquerd them and assimilated them - precisely like it was happend whith mutation R1. Why do you reject in this case normal explanation which works in any other cases? Founder effect, bottleneck effect - why in this case with this mutation it couldn't happend? This my tribe would be something like this (originally even very brownskinned) family, where 14/16 persons have visible recessive mutation (another two people probably have this mutation also).

http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lznk2olY6A1r8vrhxo1_1280.jpg


So please, don't tell me that this is impossible, and only "hocus-pocus blind need and purpose in many places at the same time" could do this. As you say yourself, blondism isn't bad mutation and in european enviroment, such people would be alive, and as you were claiming - they would have even better chances to survive, than neibouring tribes. So, they would growing in number much faster, than another people, and have even more necessery vitamins, than another people had through 45.000 years. And this is fully agreeable whith evolution and there is nothing unreasonable. Even mathematicaly in this scenario this mutation have much bigger chance to survival - in your scenario, her chances are dramaticly lower, even below zero.


If there was no reason in selection of mutations we would have body parts, which wouldn't have a purpose. So far every thing we have has a purpose.

So maybe we were disign?


White skin produces 10 times more vitamin D3 than black skin in same UV light. How convenient when living in Northern Europe in weak sun radiation.

Did I say, that it is not true?
But it doesn't mean, that this mutation have any need to exist by her own, and that it happened reacently in many places in one time in enviorment who was hunderts of times better since ca. 5000 years than previously 40.000 years and through the next 5000 years was even better. If this mutation would be neccesary, she would happen 45.000 years earlier, but she wasn't, and people were still alive in worse enviroment for eight times longer period, than this people who lived only 5000 years ago - do you realize that or not?


Here is your problem. You don't know what scientific fact is. Scientific fact is an observation or an idea which was confirmed by many times by independent scientists.

I can assure you, that theory about superiority of communism and his economy above capitalistic states where confirmed by many scientists in many countries during many many years. I, as normal person what should do? Belive them or not? You expect me to belive, besause scientists said so. The same was with communism. If some one was in America and was seeing what he was seeing - what should he claim? Other theories which I metioned were officaly confirmed by scientists, and they were claiming exactly the same at their time, as you do today. Or should I belive at the beginning of 20th century in Man from Piltdown or in stupid hairy Neaderthal-apeman? Should I? Why? This wasn't true, but was confirm by scientists and their methodology - exactly as you want make me to belive today.


Copernicus heliocentric theory was confirmed again and again by many, and it is a scientific fact. So was genetic programming and double helix theory, confirmed by many independent scientists around the planet.

Wrong example, because this are things, which still exist, and people can do experiments and observations on them.

This, about we are talking, happend only in theory, and no one never was a eyewitness to that "fact".
Everything what is talking about unwritten past and selfcreation, is only more or less a guess...


If scientists can proof again and again it is a scientific fact. Some things are tricky and take a long time to prove or disprove, but another good side of science is that science is self correcting. Meaning that, if some theories seams right at the beginning, given enough time and enough experiments the truth will persevere, and science will self correct, proving or disproving hypothesis and correct some theories.

But until this happen, it is expected from everone to belive, that this is reality and fact.
And every one who disagree with that is stupid, silly, living in fantasy and so on.
But wrong unprooved theory who is teaching as a fact and true - it is real fantasy.
Man from Pildawn was a fantasy through about 40 years - but was teaching as a fact and truth.
Every one who dont was beliving in that was considers as a silly and living in fantasy.
So, who exactly was living in fanatasy? Who?
Who was living in fanasy, who claim that Man from nebraska is a real thing?

Only someone insane could from one swine's teeth create such a real world:

http://bevets.com/ilnnbm4.jpg

And it doesn't matter how quick it was changed.
Scientists create this thing, and were teaching this as a fact. Scientific fact.
Normal person cannot know how much this scientific fact is a fact by your standarts.

So, dont expect me to take everything as a fact, because some one said so.

Tell me according to scientific mendelic and genetic rules: does my theory can happend or not.
If can - and I know that can - so why you so much oppose this? Do you really want fairy tail,
about unobserved thousands of years killing selection, if you have many exaples, that even
dominate genes which were in one not so small group vanished very quickly after they mixed
whith another more numeriuos people. And you have also real examples, that inbreeding are
really creating new phenotype. My thoery is more reasonable, more logical, more real (because
you can observe this in many cases) more statisticly and even mathematicly more probable than
yours. You have not only many exaples where you can my theory "see", but also you yourself give
enough dispooving facts for your own theory, and I cannot understand, why you still don't see this.

This is really amazing phenomenon.:thinking:

You really want be scientificly right?
Ok, you can be, if you want so much http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/2student.gif
Eppur si muove... http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/0dirol.gif

LeBrok
05-04-15, 08:53
[QUOTE]If this mutation happend in small imbreding population (presume from two to ten times bigger as much like this group of Indians who colinized America) and in this small group this light mutation were preserved. And by coincidence, person who has this mutation, have many descendats who was still inbreading in this small group of people. So what would happen then? This mutation have a chacne to dominate this population - and if during this process we would have some deasises or war and by simply coincidence more lighter people were alive than darker - so we have light population, who after that grow in number and invaded smaller populations, conquerd them and assimilated them - precisely like it was happend whith mutation R1. Why do you reject in this case normal explanation which works in any other cases? Founder effect, bottleneck effect - why in this case with this mutation it couldn't happend? This my tribe would be something like this (originally even very brownskinned) family, where 14/16 persons have visible recessive mutation (another two people probably have this mutation also).
If this was done by a chance, we would have white and black populations scattered around the globe randomly. We would have mixed white and black tribes in Africa and in Europe. It is not so. Higher latitudes are always with lighter populations and darker populations around equator. This all means that there are selective forces in place, not random chances.






http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lznk2olY6A1r8vrhxo1_1280.jpg

I know people are fascinated with albino mutation and place it as an example of white people. This is wrong, because albino mutation commonly happens only on one gene OCA. People can't tan for skin protraction, can burn skin easily in the sun, therefore suffer more skin cancers, and have severe vision problems too. It is classified as a disease.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/albinism/basics/symptoms/con-20029935
However, white/Caucasian skin effect is caused by process of multi-gene mutation. It happens that these mutations don't cause vision problems and produce more vitamin D in weaker sunlight. How convenient.



But it doesn't mean, that this mutation have any need to exist by her own, and that it happened reacently in many places in one time in enviorment who was hunderts of times better since ca. 5000 years than previously 40.000 years and through the next 5000 years was even better. If this mutation would be neccesary, she would happen 45.000 years earlier, but she wasn't, and people were still alive in worse enviroment for eight times longer period, than this people who lived only 5000 years ago - do you realize that or not?
Don't forget that hunter gatherers had different diet. They ate lots of animal meat and organs rich in vitamin D3. It is the farmers that changed our diet drastically into starches and vegetables, which lack vitamin D3. For that reason farmers needed to get whiter to get it from the Sun.





I can assure you, that theory about superiority of communism and his economy above capitalistic states where confirmed by many scientists in many countries during many many years. I, as normal person what should do? Belive them or not? You expect me to belive, besause scientists said so. Yes. Most people don't understand science and need to really on faith to believe what scientists say or not.
If it comes to superiority of communist economy, nobody ever proved that it produces more than capitalism, especially per capita. Communists claimed that communist economic system is more fair and just, therefore better. Regardless, it was not an exact science, but philosophy of morality of distribution of goods and capital.



Wrong example, because this are things, which still exist, and people can do experiments and observations on them.

This, about we are talking, happend only in theory, and no one never was a eyewitness to that "fact".
Everything what is talking about unwritten past and selfcreation, is only more or less a guess...
How do you know we can't observe a new whitening mutation in Eskimos or Inuits? Likewise we can examine bones of our ancestors and know when certain mutations happen, and how fast they had spread. We can also do experiments with white mice without a fur, release them in Africa, and check after few generations if they are getting darker with selective mutation. We can do a computer simulation to see how positive mutations are selected.




But until this happen, it is expected from everone to belive, that this is reality and fact.
And every one who disagree with that is stupid, silly, living in fantasy and so on.
But wrong unprooved theory who is teaching as a fact and true - it is real fantasy.
Man from Pildawn was a fantasy through about 40 years - but was teaching as a fact and truth.
Every one who dont was beliving in that was considers as a silly and living in fantasy.
So, who exactly was living in fanatasy? Who?
Who was living in fanasy, who claim that Man from nebraska is a real thing?

First time I hear this, though there are many similar examples. You don't need to go even so far. Some schools still teach creationism, and some people call it science. But it is not, science needs to be confirmed, and experiments repeated interdependently by many. Then it is confirmed as a fact.



And it doesn't matter how quick it was changed.
Scientists create this thing, and were teaching this as a fact. Scientific fact.
Normal person cannot know how much this scientific fact is a fact by your standarts.
True, we have to be very careful in what we believe. There are bad people and bad scientists out there.



Tell me according to scientific mendelic and genetic rules: does my theory can happend or not. Yes, it might have a chance to happen on a small scale, in small population. However, giving it a longer time and big population it will be overwritten by much stronger forces of natural selection. This albino family is an excellent example of it. It happens on small scale in family or could spread a bit in the village. But we know from observation of Indian population that it never had spread on bigger scale. You can go on a visit to India or Africa and meet thousands of people and nobody will be albino.


If can - and I know that can - so why you so much oppose this? Do you really want fairy tail,
about unobserved thousands of years killing selection, if you have many exaples, that even
dominate genes which were in one not so small group vanished very quickly after they mixed
whith another more numeriuos people. And you have also real examples, that inbreeding are
really creating new phenotype. My thoery is more reasonable, more logical, more real (because
you can observe this in many cases) more statisticly and even mathematicly more probable than
yours. You have not only many exaples where you can my theory "see", but also you yourself give
enough dispooving facts for your own theory, and I cannot understand, why you still don't see this.
Only in your head.

Semitic Duwa
07-04-15, 16:49
You're probably not aware of it, but American Ashkenazi Jews used to "sit shiva" (mourn as if dead) for members of their families who married "out". I had a friend whose family did that.

Yeah, my grandparents did that (and tore their clothes, which is the traditional way Jews mourn the death of someone close to them) when my aunt married a frenchman. Funny enough, they were quite pleased when my dad introduced my (non-jewish) mother to them, go figure.

Yet again, my grandparents' marriage was arranged and my paternal grandfather's line has a very long trail of cousin marriages.

MOESAN
09-04-15, 20:12
Hopala! this thread went very far from its first purpose I think!
here, just some modest thoughts, without trying to explode the thread! (why are some people so short in patience and sport spirit?)
- I'm not a scholar as it can be seen in some of my posts - evolution seems linked to hazardous mutations which can be selected by natural pressure (of any kind) this one varying according to time and place (not very new, I know) - now, the undertanding of the mutations/selection system is maybe interpreted in two simplistic ways sometimes? the genes are not so completely independant one from another in their functions and so in their selective advantages or disadvantages (see recessive genes for some plagues or diseases, letal but still present thousends of years later) - we see sometimes different answers to the same pressure and the genome itself we are tempted to see as a mechanical or robotlike piling up of blind genes shows sometimes something that could have a sort of proper "intelligence" (we have not explained - profans like me at least - the presence of so much non-coding DNA) ; is that to say that need creates mutation? -
-as said (by Lebrok if I remember well) a lot of mutations, by force "fragile" because of their uniqueless in some cases, are without any descendance when others do very well -
- what I think is that the today human population is less and less submitted to complete selective pressure (complicated yet, as I wrote upper) and so what occurred in History could very well no more occur in future, or with a very reduced speed -

this thread: the future mondial population will be very variated for a long time - at least concerning external traits - because the crossings more and more numerous cannot eliminate all the various features, only some very rare traits - as human beings are often looking for "exotic" features and colours (a kind of "sexual tourism",more spred that its contrary, the research of similarities found at some degree in populations under a colonialistic class system) traits which could have been eliminated can survive - so we 'll loose a lot of details traits but not the more striking differences - you have only to look at the differences between a first generation crossing result in children when two very different types of population mate one to another and the following generations - look at the South America population where already within variated population of 'europoids', 'negroids' and 'mongoloid amerindians' were crossed: it's an explosion of different faces and not a fusion - the old types ("subraces") were incompletely unified populations submitted to ancient selections, drifts and bottlenecks by isolation, phenomenons which will not occur in today mondial human population -

I remark the today life conditions doesn't select the blockhead syndrome, by the way -
I 'll go to pray Bacchus-Dyonisos to calm down the too ardent warriors - good evening

MOESAN
09-04-15, 20:13
just a word more: some disadvantageous mutations don't kill people before reproduction age -

LeBrok
19-04-15, 01:51
There is a big chance that before we all mix, we will start making a design babies through genetic manipulation. In this case it will be up to parents to describe phenotype of a child. We could end up even more varied, with more combination of features, than we are now. Perhaps we can see a birth of new races, based on fashion of a time. Same way we can recognize decades by style of cloths and houses.

Will we have a new occupation, "a baby designer"? Future Micheal Angelos will not shape people out of stone but out of genes.